By Author [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Title [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Language
all Classics books content using ISYS

Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ]

Look for this book on Amazon

We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month
fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: Problems of the Pacific
Author: Fox, Frank, Sir, 1874-1960
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
Copyright Status: Not copyrighted in the United States. If you live elsewhere check the laws of your country before downloading this ebook. See comments about copyright issues at end of book.

*** Start of this Doctrine Publishing Corporation Digital Book "Problems of the Pacific" ***

This book is indexed by ISYS Web Indexing system to allow the reader find any word or number within the document.

      file which includes the original map.



Author of "Ramparts of Empire"

Williams & Norgate
14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden


CHAP.                                                      PAGE

  1. THE OCEAN OF THE FUTURE                                  1

  2. RUSSIA IN THE PACIFIC                                   16

  3. THE RISE OF JAPAN                                       31


  5. THE UNITED STATES--AN IMPERIAL POWER                    66


  7. THE BRITISH CONTINENT IN THE PACIFIC                   100


  9. THE NATIVE RACES                                       136

 10. LATIN AMERICA                                          147

 11. CANADA AND THE PACIFIC                                 165

 12. THE NAVIES OF THE PACIFIC                              176

 13. THE ARMIES OF THE PACIFIC                              186

 14. TREATIES IN THE PACIFIC                                199

 15. THE PANAMA CANAL                                       216


 17. SOME STRATEGICAL CONSIDERATIONS                        245

 18. THE RIVALS                                             263





The Pacific is the ocean of the future. As civilisation grows and
distances dwindle, man demands a larger and yet larger stage for the
fighting-out of the ambitions of races. The Mediterranean sufficed for
the settlement of the issues between the Turks and the Christians,
between the Romans and the Carthaginians, between the Greeks and the
Persians, and who knows what other remote and unrecorded struggles of
the older peoples of its littoral. Then the world became too great to be
kept in by the Pillars of Hercules, and Fleets--in the service alike of
peace and war--ranged over the Atlantic. The Mediterranean lost its
paramount importance, and dominance of the Atlantic became the test of
world supremacy.

Now greater issues and greater peoples demand an even greater stage. On
the bosom of the Pacific will be decided, in peace or in war, the next
great struggle of civilisation, which will give as its prize the
supremacy of the world. Shall it go to the White Race or the Yellow
Race? If to the White Race, will it be under the British Flag, or the
flag of the United States, or of some other nation? That is the problem
of the Pacific.

Since Cortes first looked on the waters of the ocean from a peak in
Darien, since Balboa of Castile waded into its waters and claimed them
for the dominion of the King of Castile, events have rushed forward with
bewildering haste to transfer the centre of the world's interest to the
Pacific. Cortes in his day looked to a North Pacific coast inhabited by
a few wandering Indians. (The powerful national organisation of Mexico
had not extended its influence as far as the Pacific coast.) Now there
stretch along that coast the Latin-American Power of Mexico, doomed,
probably, to be absorbed before the great issue of Pacific dominance is
decided, but having proved under Diaz some capacity for organisation;
the gigantic Power of the United States with the greatest resources of
wealth and material force ever possessed by a single nation of the
world; and the sturdy young Power of Canada.

To the South, Cortes looked to a collection of Indian States, of which
Peru was the chief, boasting a gracious but unwarlike civilisation,
doomed to utter destruction at the hands of Spain. Now that stretch of
Pacific littoral is held by a group of Latin-American nations, the
possibilities of which it is difficult accurately to forecast, but which
are in some measure formidable if Chili is accepted as a standard by
which to judge, though, on the whole, they have shown so far but little
capacity for effective national organisation.

Looking westward, Cortes in his day could see nothing but darkness. It
was surmised rather than known that there lay the Indies, the kingdoms
of the Cham of Tartary and the great Mogul, lands which showed on the
horizon of the imagination, half real, half like the fantasy of a
mirage. To-day the west coast of the Pacific is held by the European
Power of Russia; by the aspiring Asiatic Power of Japan, which within
half a century has forgotten the use of the bow and the fan in warfare
and hammered its way with modern weapons into the circle of the world's
great Powers; by China, stirring uneasily and grasping at the same
weapons which won greatness for Japan; by a far-flung advance guard of
the great Power of the United States in the Philippines, won
accidentally, held grimly; by England's lonely outposts, Australia and
New Zealand, where less than five millions of the British race hold a
territory almost as large as Europe.

Sprinkled over the surface of the ocean, between East and West, are
various fortresses or trading stations, defending interests or arousing
cupidities. Germany and France are represented. The United States holds
Hawaii, the key to the Pacific coast of North America, either for
offence or defence. Great Britain has Fiji and various islets. The
Japanese Power stretches down towards the Philippines with the recent
acquisition of Formosa.

Here are seen all the great actors in European rivalry. Added to them
are the new actors in world-politics, who represent the antagonism of
the Yellow Race to the White Race. Before all is dangled the greatest
temptation to ambition and cupidity. Who is master of the Pacific, who
has the control of its trade, the industrial leadership of its peoples,
the disposal of its warrior forces, will be master of the world.

It is a problem not only of navies and armies (though with our present
defective civilisation these are the most important factors): it is a
problem also of populations and their growth, of industries, of the
development of natural resources, of trade and commerce. The Pacific
littoral is in part unpeopled, in part undeveloped, unorganised,
unappropriated. Its Asiatic portion must change, it is changing, from a
position which may be compared with that of Japan fifty years ago to a
position such as Japan's to-day. Its American and Australian portion
must develop power and wealth surpassing that of Europe. Under whose
leadership will the change be made? To discuss that question is the
purpose of this book: and at the outset the lines on which the
discussion will proceed and the conclusions which seem to be inevitable
may be foreshadowed.

At one time Russia seemed destined to the hegemony of the Pacific. Yet
she was brought to the Pacific coast by accident rather than by design.
Her natural destiny was westward and southward rather than eastward,
though it was natural that she should slowly permeate the Siberian
region. As far back as the reign of Ivan the Terrible (the Elizabethan
epoch in Anglo-Saxon history), the curious celibate military
organisation of the Cossacks had won much of Siberia for the Czars. But
there was no dream then, nor at a very much later period, of penetration
to the Pacific.

European jealousy of Russia, a jealousy which is explainable only with
the reflection that vast size naturally fills with awe the human mind,
stopped her advance towards the Mediterranean. In the north her ports
were useless in winter. In the south she was refused a development of
her territory which was to her mind natural and just. Thus thwarted,
Russia groped in a blind way from the Siberian provinces which had been
won by the Cossacks towards a warm-water port in Asia. At first the
movement was southward and filled England with alarm as to the fate of
India. Then it turned eastward, and in Manchuria and Corea this European
Power seemed to find its destiny. But Japan was able to impose an
effective check upon Russian ambitions in the Far East. At the present
moment Russia has been supplanted in control of the Asiatic seaboard by

Japan has everything but money to equip her for a bold bid for the
mastery of the Pacific before the completion of the Panama Canal. Europe
has taught to Japan, in addition to the material arts of warfare, a
cynical faith in the moral value, indeed, the necessity, of war to
national welfare. She considers that respect is only to be gained by
war: that war with a European nation is an enterprise of small risk:
that in short her experience with the Russian Fleet was fairly typical
of war with any European Power. She believes that she has the most
thoroughly efficient army and navy, considering their size, in the
world; and has much to justify the belief.

This ambition and the warlike confidence of Japan constitute to-day a
more important factor in the problem of the Pacific than her actual
fighting strength. But the check to prompt decisive action on her part
is that of poverty. Japan is very poor. The last war, in spite of great
gain of prestige, brought no gain of money. Its cost bled her veins
white, and there was no subsequent transfusion in the shape of a Russian
indemnity. Nor are the natural resources of Japan such as to hold out
much hope of a quick industrial prosperity. She has few minerals. Her
soil is in the bulk wretchedly poor. From the territories control of
which she has won in battle--Manchuria and Corea--she will reap some
advantage by steadily ignoring the "open door" obligation in trade, and
by dispossessing the native peasantry. But it cannot be very great.
There is no vast natural wealth to be exploited. The native peasantry
can be despoiled and evicted, but the booty is trifling and the cost of
the process not inconsiderable since even the Corean will shoot from his
last ditch.

Japan is now seeking desperately a material prosperity by industrial
expansion. A tariff and bounty system, the most rigid and scientific the
world knows, aims to make the country a great textile-weaving,
ship-building, iron-making country. The smallest scrap of an industry is
sedulously nurtured, and Japanese matches, Japanese soap, Japanese beer,
penetrate to the markets of the outer world as evidence of the ambition
of the people to be manufacturers. But when one explores down to
bedrock, the only real bases for industrial prosperity in Japan are a
supply of rather poor coal and a great volume of cheap labour. The
second is of some value in cheap production, but it is yet to be found
possible to build up national prosperity on the sole basis of cheap
labour. Further, with the growth of modernity in Japan, there is
naturally a labour movement. Doctrines of Socialism are finding
followers: strikes are heard of occasionally. The Japanese artisan and
coolie may not be content to slave unceasingly on wages which deny life
all comfort, to help a method of national aggrandisement the purport of
which they can hardly understand.

The position of Japan in the Pacific has to be considered, therefore, in
the light of the future rather than of the present. At the time of the
conclusion of the war with Russia it seemed supreme. Since then it has
steadily deteriorated. If she had succeeded in the realisation of her
ambition to undertake the direction of China's military and industrial
reorganisation, the Japanese Power would have been firmly established
for some generations at least. But the defects in her national character
prevented that. Inspiring no confidence among the Chinese, the Japanese
found all attempts at peaceful assumption of a controlling influence in
China checked by sullen antipathy; and a forced assumption would not
have been tolerated by Europe. It will not be found possible, on a full
survey of the facts, to credit Japan with the power to hold a supreme
place in the Pacific. She is, even now, among the dwindling Powers.

China, on the other hand, has the possibilities of a mighty future.
To-day she is in the throes of nation-birth. To-morrow she may unbind
her feet and prepare to join in the race for supremacy. The bringing of
China into the current of modern life will not be an easy task, but it
is clearly not an impossible one. Before the outbreak of the present
Revolution (which may place China among the democratic Republics of the
world), the people of the Celestial Empire had begun to reconsider
seriously their old attitude of intolerance towards European
civilisation. To understand fully the position of China it is necessary
to keep in mind the fact that the actual Chinese nation, some
400,000,000 of people, enervated as were the Peruvians of South America,
by a system of theocratic and pacific Socialism, were subjected about
250 years ago to the sovereignty of the Manchus, a warrior race from the
Steppes. Since then the Manchus have governed China, tyrannously,
incompetently, on the strength of a tradition of military superiority
stronger far than the _Raj_ by which the British have held India. But
the Manchus--in numbers and in intellect far inferior to the
Chinese--forgot in time their military enterprise and skill. The
tradition of it, however, remained until the events of the nineteenth
and twentieth centuries showed that the Manchu military power was
contemptible not only against the white foreigner, but also against the
Japanese _parvenu_. Patient China, finding her tyrant to be a weak
despot, revolts now, not only against the Manchu dynasty, but also
against the Conservatism which has kept her from emulating Japan's
success in the world.

At present the power of China in the Pacific is negligible. In the
future it may be the greatest single force in that ocean. Almost
certainly it may be reckoned to take the place of Japan as the chief
Asiatic factor.

Japan and China having been considered, the rest of Asia is negligible
as affecting the destiny of the Pacific except in so far as India can
serve as basis of action for British power. An independent Indian nation
is hardly one of the possibilities of the future. Religious, racial, and
caste distinctions make a united, independent India at present
impossible. Unless the British Power carries too far a tendency to
conciliate the talking tribes of the Hindoo peninsula at the expense of
the fighting tribes, it should hold India by right of a system of
government which is good though not perfect, and by reason of the
impossibility of suggesting any substitute. In the event of a failure of
the British Power, India would still, in all probability, fail to take a
place among the great nations of the earth. Either she would fall a
victim to some other nation or relapse into the condition, near to
anarchy, which was hers before the coming of the Europeans.

It is not possible to imagine to-day any European Power other than Great
Britain--with the possible exception of Russia--becoming strongly
established in the Pacific. France and Germany have footholds certainly.
But in neither case is the territory held by them possible of great
development, and in neither case is there a chain of strategic stations
to connect the Pacific colony with the Mother Country. The despatch of
the German "mailed fist" to Kiao-Chou in China some years ago is still
remembered as one of the comic rather than the serious episodes of
history. The squadron bearing to the Chinese the martial threat of the
German Emperor had to beg its way from one British coaling station to
another because of the lack of German ports.

The influence of South America in the Pacific need not yet be
calculated. It is a possible far-future factor in the problem; and the
completion of Trans-Andine railways may quickly enhance the importance
of Chili and Peru. But for the present South America can take no great
part in the Pacific struggle.

It is when British influence and American influence in the Pacific come
to be considered that the most important factors in the contest for its
supremacy enter upon the stage. Let us consider, for the nonce, the two
Powers separately.

The British Empire--holding Australia and New Zealand with an audacious
but thin garrison; having a long chain of strategic stations such as
Hong Kong and Singapore; having in India a powerful rear base for
supplies; holding a great part of the North-West Coast of America with a
population as yet scanty but beginning to develop on the same lines as
the Australasian people--is clearly well situated to win and to hold the
mastery of the Pacific. Such mastery would have to be inspired with
peaceful ideals; it could not survive as an aggressive force. It is
indeed the main strength of the British position in the Pacific that it
is naturally anxious, not for a disturbance but for a preservation of
the present state of things, which gives to the British Empire all that
a reasonable ambition could require. It is wise and easy to be peaceable
when one has all the best of the spoils.

For a secure British mastery of the Pacific, India would need to be held
with the military assistance of South Africa and Australia, and made a
great naval base; Australia and New Zealand would need to be populated
seriously; Canada would need to be guarded against absorption by the
United States and its new population kept as far as possible to the
British type; the friendship and co-operation of the United States would
need to be sought.

Turning next to the United States it will be recognised that she has in
a realised form all the force and wealth possible to an organised China
or a fully developed Australia. She has one hundred million people, who
have reached the highest stage of civilised organisation. Their material
wealth--and wealth counts for much in modern war--is almost
incalculable. Their national ambition has never been checked by defeat.
Lately it has been fed with foreign war and territorial conquest and it
has found the taste good. The American people face the future possessed
of all the material for a policy of aggressive Imperialism and with a
splendidly youthful faith in their own good motives, a faith which can
justify an action better than any degree of cynicism. There is as much
of the "old Adam" in them as in the peoples of any of the "effete
monarchies," and many circumstances seem to point to them as anxious to
take the lead among the White Races in the future.

As regards the Pacific, American ambition is clear. The United States
holds the Philippines at great expense of treasure and blood. She is
fortifying Honolulu, with the idea of making it a naval base "stronger
than Gibraltar."[1] She is cutting the Panama Canal and fortifying the
entrances with the probable purpose of giving to the United States a
monopoly of that gateway in time of war. With splendid audacity the
American despises secrecy in regard to his future plans. In New York
Naval Yard three years ago I was informed, with an amplitude of detail
that was convincing, of the United States' scheme for patrolling the
whole Pacific with her warships when the Canal had been finished.

Supposing, then, the United States to continue her present industrial
and commercial progress; supposing her to gradually tighten her hold on
the rest of the American continent; supposing her to overcome certain
centrifugal forces now at work, the problem of the Pacific, should the
United States decide to play a "lone hand," will be solved. It will
become an American lake, probably after a terrible struggle in which the
pretensions of the Yellow Races will be shattered, possibly after
another fratricidal struggle in which the British possessions in the
Pacific, Australia, and New Zealand, equally with Canada, will be forced
to obedience.

But is there any necessity to consider the United States and the British
Empire as playing mutually hostile parts in the Pacific? They have been
the best of friends there in the past. They have many good reasons to
remain friends in the future. A discussion as to whether the Pacific
Ocean is destined to be controlled by the American or by the British
Power could be reasonably ended with the query: Why not by an
Anglo-Celtic union representing both?

An Anglo-Celtic alliance embracing Great Britain, the United States and
the British Dominions, would settle in the best way the problem of the
Pacific. No possible combination, Asiatic, European, or Asia-European,
could threaten its position. But there are certain difficulties in the
way, which will be discussed later. For the present, it has only to be
insisted that both Powers are potential rather than actual masters of
the Pacific. Neither in the case of Great Britain nor of the United
States is a great Pacific force at the moment established. After her
treaty with Japan, Great Britain abandoned for a while the idea of
maintaining any serious naval strength in the Pacific. The warships she
maintained there, on the Australian station and elsewhere, had no
fighting value against modern armaments, and were kept in the Pacific as
a step towards the scrap-heap. That policy has since been reversed, and
the joint efforts of Great Britain, Australia, and New Zealand directed
towards re-establishing British Pacific naval strength. At the
moment, however, the actual British naval force in the Pacific is
inconsiderable, if obsolete or obsolescent vessels are ruled out of
consideration. The United States also has no present naval force in the
Pacific that could contest the issue with even a fraction of the
Japanese navy. Clearly, too, she has no intention of attempting the
organisation of a powerful Pacific Fleet separate from her Atlantic
Fleet, but aims at the bolder policy of holding her interests in both
oceans by one great Fleet which will use the Panama Canal to mobilise at
an emergency in either.

If the resources of the present with their probable growth in the future
are taken into account, Great Britain and the United States will appear
as massing enormous naval and military forces in the Pacific. The
preponderance of naval force will be probably on the side of the United
States for very many years--since it is improbable that Great Britain
will ever be able to detach any great proportion of her Fleet from
European waters and her Pacific naval force will be comprised mainly of
levies from Australia and New Zealand, and possibly Canada, India, and
South Africa. The preponderance of military force will be probably on
the side of Great Britain, taking into count the citizen armies of
Australia and New Zealand (and possibly of Canada) and the great forces
available in India. Complete harmony between Great Britain and the
United States in the Pacific would thus give the hegemony of the ocean
to the Anglo-Saxon race. Rivalry between them might lead to another
result. In the natural course of events that "other result" might be
Asiatic dominion in one form or another.

These factors in Pacific rivalry will be discussed in detail in the
following chapters.


[1] Since the above was written it is reported that the United States
has taken possession of Palmyra Island--once a British possession--to
the south of Honolulu, obviously for strategic purposes.



Russia, for generations the victim of Asia, when at last she had won to
national greatness, was impelled by pressure from the West rather than
by a sense of requital to turn back the tide of invasion. That pressure
from the West was due to a misunderstanding in which Great Britain led
the way, and which the late Lord Salisbury happily described when he
stated that England "had backed the wrong horse" in opposing Russia and
in aiding Turkey against her.

Russia, because she broke Napoleon's career of victory by her power of
resistance, a power which was founded on a formlessness of national life
rather than a great military strength, was credited by Europe with a
fabulous might. Properly understood, the successful Russian resistance
to the greatest of modern captains was akin to that of an earthwork
which absorbs the sharpest blows of artillery and remains unmoved,
almost unharmed. But it was misinterpreted, and a mental conception
formed of the Russian earthwork as a mobile, aggressive force eager to
move forward and to overwhelm Europe. Russia's feat of beating back the
tide of Napoleonic invasion was merely the triumph of a low biological
type of national organism. Yet it inspired Europe with a mighty fear.
The "Colossus of the North" came into being to haunt every Chancellery.

Nowhere was the fear felt more acutely than in Great Britain. It is a
necessary consequence of the British Imperial expansion of the past, an
expansion that came about very often in spite of the Mother Country's
reluctance and even hostility, that Great Britain must now always view
with distrust, with suspicion, that country which is the greatest of the
European Continental Powers for the time being, whether it be France,
Russia, or Germany. If British foreign policy is examined carefully it
will be found to have been based on that guiding principle for many
generations. Whatever nation appears to aim at a supreme position in
Europe must be confronted by Great Britain.

Sometimes British statesmen, following instinctively a course which was
set for them by force of circumstances, have not recognised the real
reason of their actions. They have imagined that there was some ethical
warrant for the desire for a European "balance of power." They have seen
in the malignant disposition of whatever nation was the greatest Power
in Europe for the time being a just prompting to arrange restraining
coalitions, to wage crippling wars. But the truth is that the British
race, with so much that is desirable of the earth under its flag, with
indeed almost all the good empty lands in its keeping, must be jealous
of the next European Power. On the other hand, every growing Power in
Europe must look with envy on the rich claim which one prospector, and
that one not the earliest, has pegged out in the open fields of the
world. Thus between Great Britain and the next European Power in rank
there is always a mutual jealousy. The growing Power is credited with a
desire to seize the rich lands of the British Empire; and generally has
the desire. The holding Power is apprehensive of every step forward of
any rival, seeing in it a threat to her Empire's security. There is such
a thing in this world as being too rich to be comfortable. That is Great
Britain's national position.

Thus when the power of France was broken and Napoleon was safely shut up
in St Helena, the British nation, relieved of one dread, promptly found
another. Russia was credited with designs on India. She was supposed to
be moving south towards the Mediterranean, and her object in seeking to
be established there was obviously to challenge British naval supremacy,
and to capture British overseas colonies. British diplomacy devoted
itself sternly to the task of checkmating Russia. Russia, the big
blundering amorphous nation, to whom England had given, some generations
before, early promptings to national organisation, and who now sprawled
clumsily across Europe groping for a way out of her ice-chains towards
a warm-water port, became the traditional enemy of the British Empire.

This idea of Russian rivalry grew to be an obsession. The melodramas of
the British people had for their favourite topic the odious cruelty of
Russian tyranny. If a submarine cable to a British colony were
interrupted, or a quarry explosion startled the air, the colonists at
once turned their thoughts to a Russian invasion, and mobilised their
volunteers. Colonists of this generation can remember the thrills of
early childhood, when more than once they "prepared for the Russians,"
and the whole force of some hundreds of volunteers and cadets determined
to sell their lives dearly on the battlefield to keep Russian knouts
from the backs of their womenfolk, it being seriously considered that
the Russian always celebrated a victory by a general knouting.

Not until the idea of Russia establishing a hegemony over Europe had
been dissipated by the Russo-Japanese War did British statesmanship
really discover qualities of good neighbourliness in the Russian. But by
that time the main direction of Russian expansion had been definitely
settled as eastward instead of southward. Perhaps this was to the
ultimate advantage of civilisation, even though the decision left the
Hellenic peninsula in the grip of the Turk, for it pushed the buffer
territory between Europe and Asia far forward into Asia. Should an
Asiatic Power, with revived militancy, ever seek again the conquest of
Europe, as Asiatic Powers have done before this, the war must commence
in Manchuria, and not on the plains below the Ural Mountains.

The position which Russia has occupied as a buffer state between Asia
and Europe has kept her back in the ranks of the army of civilisation.
Not only has she had to suffer the first of the savage blows which Asian
hordes have from time to time aimed at Europe, but also she has had to
endure Asiatic additions to her population, reducing the standard of her

The instinct against race-mixture which Nature has implanted in man is
the great safeguard of the work of evolution to a higher type. The White
Race, having developed on certain lines to a position which promises, if
it does not fulfil, the evolution of a yet higher type, has an
instinctive repugnance to mixing its blood with peoples in other stages
of evolution. It is this instinct, this transcendental instinct, which
is responsible for the objection to miscegenation in the United States,
and for the lynchings by which that objection is impressed upon the
negro mind. The same instinct is at the back of the "White Australia"
laws, forbidding coloured people any right of entry into Australia.

It is not difficult to argue from a point of view of Christian religion
and humanity against an instinct which finds its extreme, but yet its
logical, expression in the burning of some negro offender at the stake.
But all the arguments in the world will not prevail against Nature. Once
a type has won a step up it must be jealous and "selfish," and even
brutal in its scorn of lower types; or must climb down again. This may
not be good ethics, but it is Nature. Russian backwardness in
civilisation to-day is a living proof that the scorn of the coloured man
is a necessary condition of the progress of the White Man's

But the race-mixture which was of evil to Russia has been of benefit to
the rest of Europe. To borrow a metaphor from modern preventive
medicine, the Russian marches between Europe and Asia have had their
power of resistance to Yellow invasion strengthened by the infusion of
some Yellow blood.

A land of high steppes, very cold in winter, very hot in summer, and of
great forests, which were difficult to traverse except where the rivers
had cut highways, Russia was never so tempting to the early European
civilisations as to lead to her area being definitely occupied and held
as a province. Neither Greek nor Roman attempted much colonisation in
Russia. By general consent the country was left to be a No-Man's-Land
between Asia and Europe. Alexander, whose army penetrated through to
India and actually brought back news of the existence of Australia,
never marched far north into the interior of Russia. There the mixed
tribes of Finns, Aryans, Semites, Mongols held a great gloomy country
influenced little by civilisation, but often temporarily submerged by
waves of barbarians from the Asiatic steppes. Still Western Europe in
time made some little impression on the Russian mass. Byzantine culture
impressed its mark on the Southern Slavs; Roman culture, after filtering
through Germany, reached the Lithuanians of the north. In the twelfth
century we hear of Arabian caravans making their way as far as the
Baltic in search of amber.

But more important to the Russian civilisation was the advent of the
Normans in the ninth century. They consolidated White Russia during the
ninth to the thirteenth centuries, appeared as warriors before the walls
of Byzantium, and learned the Christian faith from the priests of the
Eastern communion. (Russia has since been faithful always to the Greek
Church.) That period was rich in national heroes, such as Rurik, Simeon
and Truvor, and definitely set the current of Russian national life
towards a place in the European family of nations. By the thirteenth
century the White Russians, with their capital established at Moscow,
were able to withstand for a while a new Mongol invasion. But they could
not prevent Gengis Khan's lieutenants establishing themselves on the
lower Volga, and the Grand Prince of Moscow had to be content to become
a suzerain of the Grand Khan of Tartary.

For three centuries Russia now, amid many troubles, prepared herself to
take a place amongst European Powers. She was still more or less subject
to the Asiatic. But she was not Asiatic, and her vast area stood between
Europe and Asia and allowed the more Western nations to grow up free
from interference from any Eastern people, except in the case of the
great invasion of the Turks coming up from the south-east. How great was
the service that Russia unconsciously did to civilisation during those
centuries! If the Tartar had come with the Turk, or had followed him,
the White Races and their civilisation might have been swept away.

After being the bulwark of Europe for centuries Russia at last found her
strength and became the avenger of the White Races. By the sixteenth
century the Russian power had been consolidated under the Muscovite
Czars, and a great nation, of which the governing class was altogether
European, began to push back the Asiatic. From the sixteenth to the
nineteenth centuries the Russian Power grew. The natural direction of
expansion was southward. The new nation wanted a place in the sun, and
looked longingly towards the Mediterranean. Only the Turk stood in the
path, and for the Russian Czars war with the Turk had something of a
religious attraction. It was the Cross against the Crescent. It was the
champion of the Greek Church winning back the Byzantine Empire to
Christian domination.

For Russia to march south, driving the infidel from Europe, freeing the
Greeks, establishing herself in Constantinople, winning warm-water ports
and warm-climate fields, seemed to the Russian mind a national policy
which served both God and Mammon. That it served God was no slight thing
to the Russian people. They, then as now, cherished a simplicity and a
strenuousness of faith which may be called "superstitious" or
"beautiful and childlike" as the observer may wish, but which is
undoubtedly sincere. "There has been only one Christian," wrote Heine.
If he had known the Russians he would have qualified the gibe. They have
a real faith, and it is an important factor in the making of their
national policy which has to be taken into account.

How much there was of religious impulse and how much of mere
materialistic national ambition in Russia's move southward did not in
the least concern other European Powers. Whatever its motive they
considered the development dangerous. It threatened to give the Russian
an overwhelming power, a paramountcy in Europe, and that could not be
tolerated even if it had the most worthy of motives. Above all, Great
Britain was alarmed. In the days of Elizabeth Great Britain had been a
very good friend to Russia. But Russia was then no possible rival either
on land or on the high seas. In the days of Victoria the position had
changed. Russia still wore the laurels of her "victories" over Napoleon.
She was credited with being the greatest military Power in the world,
and credited also with a relentless and Machiavellian diplomacy that
added vastly to the material resources of her armies and fleets.

The Crimean War, with its resulting humiliating restrictions on Russian
power in the Black Sea, taught Russia that Europe was determined to
block her path south and preferred to buttress Turkish misrule than to
permit Russian expansion. Baffled but still restless, Russia turned
east and marched steadily towards the Pacific, with a side glance at the
Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean, which caused Great Britain fresh
apprehension as to the fate of India.

The progress of the Russian Power in Asia throughout the nineteenth
century and its sudden check at the dawn of the twentieth century make
one of the most dramatic chapters of the world's history. European
rivalry had followed Russia on her march across Siberia, and the British
Power in particular was alarmed to see the "Colossus of the North" with
a naval base in the Pacific. Alarm was deepened when, after reaching the
waters of the Pacific, Russia turned south, again eager for a warm-water
port. At the time China seemed to be on the verge of dissolution as a
national entity, and it seemed as though Russia were destined to win a
great Asiatic Empire beside which even India would be a poor prize. In
1885 Great Britain nearly went to war with Russia in the defence of the
integrity of Corea.

But the decisive check to Russia was to come from another source. The
time had arrived for Asia to reassert some of her old warlike might. The
island power of Japan, having shaken off the cumbrous and useless armour
of medievalism, set herself sturdily in the path of modern progress and
aspired to a place among the great nations of the earth. Japan saw
clearly that Russia was the immediate enemy and prepared for a decisive
war, with an uncanny determinedness and a scrupulous attention to every
detail. Vast military and naval armaments had to be prepared. The
necessary money had to be wrung from a bitterly poor population or
borrowed at usurious rates. The political art with which that was done
was not the least wonderful part of a great national achievement.
Then--the weapons of war forged--it seemed good to Japanese
statesmanship to flesh them on an easy victim. It fell to China's lot to
teach the Japanese confidence in their new warlike arts, and to pay in
the shape of an indemnity something towards the cost of the great
struggle which Japan contemplated.

Had Russia had that relentless and Machiavellian diplomacy with which
she used to be credited, she would never have permitted the Japanese
attack upon China. Constituting herself the champion of China, she would
at one stroke have pushed back the growing power of Japan and
established a claim to some suzerainty over the Celestial Empire. In
carrying out her plans Japan had to take this chance, of Russia coming
on top of her when she attacked China. She took the chance and won.
Russia would have had to take the chance of a great European upheaval if
she had interfered in the Japo-Chinese struggle. She did not take the
chance, and allowed her rival to arm at China's expense to meet her.

The Chinese war finished, Japan, equipped with a full war-chest, a
veteran army and navy, was now ready to meet Russia. But she was faced
by the difficulty that in meeting Russia she might also have to meet a
European coalition, or the almost equally dangerous eventuality of a
veto on the war on the part of the United States. Japan was convinced of
her ability to fight Russia single-handed. Probably she would, in the
last event, have decided to take the risks of any coalition and enter
upon the war, since she had to fight Russia or perish as an expanding
Power. But she determined in the first instance to attempt to obtain a
safeguarding alliance.

There are indications that Japan had in the first instance thoughts of
the United States, of Germany and of Great Britain, as alternative
allies. She thought of the United States because of her great financial
strength, her appreciable naval power in the Pacific, and her likely
value in keeping Great Britain out of the ring: of Germany because of
her military power on the Russian frontier; of Great Britain because of
her overwhelming naval power. Some held that Great Britain was only
approached in the second place. Whether that were so or not, the British
Power proved favourable.

Japan was lucky in the moment of her approach. It had become obvious at
that time to British statesmanship that the old ideal of "splendid
isolation" was no longer tenable. The British Empire needed alliances,
or at least safeguarding understandings with other nations. But it
almost seemed as though the knowledge had come too late. Apparently
there were no European friendships offering. Japan thus found Great
Britain in a somewhat anxious mood, and an alliance was concluded
between the Power which had hitherto followed a policy of splendid
isolation and the _parvenu_ Power of the Far East. Japan was now all
ready, and Russia was doomed to be ousted from her position as a great
Power in the Pacific.

A great deal of nonsense has been written and accepted as true
concerning the war between Japan and Russia. Throughout the course of
that war the Japanese took the best of care to put their own view of the
case before the world. The "wonderful heroism," "the marvellous
strategical and tactical skill," "the perfect medical and transport
arrangements" of the Japanese forces received something more than their
fair share of praise, because of the intelligent and perspicuous
industry of the Japanese publicity agencies. The Japanese conducted a
fine campaign. Their generals and admirals followed the best models in
their dispositions. Both in the movements and in the sanitary regulation
of the troops, the commanders were much helped by the habit of
discipline of a nation inured to yield blind obedience to a god-born
ruler. Still there was no inspired genius for war shown by the Japanese.
Their movements were copied from the books. A well-led White army of
much less strength would, I believe, have driven them ultimately from
Corea into the sea. Their seeming want of power of original thought and
their reliance on routine made their movements slow and flabby. They won
by the inferiority of the enemy rather than by a great genius for

The Russians on their side fought under the dispiriting conditions of
having a well-trained enemy in front and a revolution behind. The heart
of the nation was not with them, and the Russian autocracy was hampered
at every turn by the internal disorders of European Russia. It seems
probable that the autocracy hoped to solve in part a double problem by
the mischievous ingenuity of drafting as many as possible of the
discontented at home to the war abroad. That helped things in Russia,
but added to the difficulties of the generals in Manchuria. Withal, the
Russians put up a good fight. The early engagements were but rearguard
actions, the Japanese having an enormous superiority of force, and the
Russians striving to delay rather than to arrest their advance. It was
not until Mukden that the single line of railway to Russia had brought
General Kouropatkin a fair equality of force: and he had to contend then
with the tradition of retreat which had been perforce established in his
army, and with the growing paralysis of his home government confronted
by a great revolutionary movement. Even so, Mukden was a defeat and not
a rout.

It is necessary to keep in mind these facts in order to arrive at a
sound conclusion as to the future position of Russia in the Pacific. It
is not safe to rule her out of the reckoning altogether. A second war,
waged by a united Russia against Japan, would probably have a far
different result, and would drive Japan off the Asiatic mainland were
the ring to be kept clear. For the present, however, Russia is a Power
with a great territory washed by the Pacific Ocean, but with no decisive
voice in its destinies.



The misfortune of success has never been better exemplified in the
world's history than in the results which have followed from the White
Man's attempt to arouse Japan to an appreciation of the blessings of
European civilisation. Our fathers and grandfathers of the middle
nineteenth century battered at the barred and picturesque doors of the
land of the Mikado with a vague idea that there was plunder, trade or
some other tangible benefit to be got from dragging the quaint Yellow
Recluse out of his retirement. Without a foreboding, every civilised
Power that had a fighting ship and the time to spare, took some part in
urging Japan to awake and be modern. A great deal of gunpowder was
burned before the little Asiatic nation stirred. Then she seemed in a
flash to learn the whole lesson of our combative civilisation. Naval
strategy; the forging of trade-marks; military organisation;
appreciation of the value of cheap labour and of machinery in industry;
aseptic surgery; resolute and cunning diplomacy--all these were suddenly
added to the mental equipment of an Asiatic people, and all used in
reprisal against Europe. To-day Japan is the greatest warrior Power in
the Pacific, and is also a powerful factor in that war for markets which
is not the least important manifestation of race rivalry. As sailors,
soldiers, merchants and factory hands, the Japanese are unmistakably

With a discipline impossible of achievement by a European race, the
Japanese people pursued the methods of eclectic philosophy in their
nation-making. They copied the best from the army systems of Germany and
France: duplicated the British naval discipline: adopted what they
thought most efficient of the industrial machinery of Europe and
America, including a scientific tariff. Nothing that seemed likely to be
of advantage was neglected. Even the question of religion was seriously
considered, and these awakened people were at one time on the point of a
simultaneous national adoption of some form of Christianity. But they
were convinced on reflection that nothing of Europe's success in this
world was due to religion; and, unconcerned for the moment with anything
that was not of this world, decided to forbear from "scrapping"
Shintoism and sending it to the rubbish heap where reposed the
two-handled sword of the Sumarai.[10]

This miracle of the complete transformation of a race has been
accomplished in half a century. Within the memory of some living people
the Japanese were content with a secluded life on their hungry islands,
where they painted dainty pictures, wove quaint and beautiful fabrics,
cultivated children and flowers in a spirit of happy artistry, and
pursued war among themselves as a sport, with enthusiasm certainly, but
without any excessive cruelty, if consideration be given to Asiatic
ideas of death and the Asiatic degree of sensitiveness to torture. They
were without any ideas of foreign conquest. The world had no respect for
Japan then. Specimens of Japanese painting and pottery were admired by a
few connoisseurs in little corners of the world (such as Bond Street,
London), and that was all. Now, Japan having learned the art of modern
warfare, we know also that the Japanese are great artists, great
philosophers, great poets. Of a sudden a nation has jumped from being
naturally chosen as the most absurd and harmless vehicle for a Gilbert
satire to that of being "the honoured ally" of Great Britain, in respect
to whose susceptibilities that satire should be suppressed.

But our belated respect for the artistry of the Japanese gives little,
if any, explanation of the miracle of their sudden transformation. The
Chinese are greater artists, greater philosophers, superior
intellectually and physically. They heard at an even earlier date the
same harsh summons from Europe to wake up. But it was neglected, and,
whatever the outcome of the revolutionary movement now progressing, the
Chinese are not yet a Power to be taken into present consideration as
regards the Pacific Ocean or world-politics generally. The most patient
search gives no certain guidance as to the causes of Japan's sudden
advance to a position amongst the world's great nations. If we could
accurately determine those causes it would probably give a valuable clue
to the study of the psychology of races. But the effort is in vain. An
analogy is often drawn between the Japanese and the British. Except that
both were island races, there are few points of resemblance. The British
islands, inhabited originally by the Gauls, had their human stock
enriched from time to time by the Romans, the Danes, the Teutons, the
Normans. The British type, in part Celtic, in part Roman, in part
Danish, in part Anglo-Saxon, in part Norman, was naturally a
hard-fighting, stubborn, adventurous race fitted for the work of
exploration and colonisation.

But the Japanese had, so far as can be ascertained, little advantage
from cross-breeding. Probably they were originally a Tartar race. The
primitive inhabitants of the islands were ancestors of the Hairy Ainus,
who still survive in small numbers. Like the aboriginals of Australia,
the Ainus were a primitive rather than a degraded type, closely allied
to the ancestors of the European races. Probably the Tartar invaders who
colonised Japan came by way of Corea. But after their advent there was
no new element introduced to give the human race in Japan a fresh
stimulus; and that original Tartar stock, though vigorous and warlike,
has never proved elsewhere any great capacity for organisation.

In the sixth century of the Christian Era, Chinese civilisation and the
Buddhistic religion came to the Japanese, who at the time had about the
same standard of culture as the Red Indians of the American continent
when the _Mayflower_ sailed. For some four centuries the Japanese island
race was tributary to China, and during that time there was evolved a
national religion, Shintoism, which probably represented the old Tartar
faith modified by Chinese philosophy. In the eighth and subsequent
centuries, Japan in its national organisation very closely resembled
feudal Europe. As in Europe, there was a service tenure for the land; a
system by which organised groups, or KO's, became answerable
collectively for the deeds of each member of the group; and, as in
feudal Europe, Church and State made rival claims to supreme power.

Indiscriminate fighting between rival feudal lords, a constant strife
between the Shoguns, representing the priestly power, and the Mikados,
representing the civil power, make up the islands' history for century
after century. Through it all there is no gleam of light on the
evolution of the latent powers which were to come to maturity, as in an
hour, during the nineteenth century. Japan appeared to be an average
example of a semi-civilised country which would never evolve to a much
higher state because of the undisciplined quarrelsomeness of its people.

In the sixteenth century Europe first made the acquaintance of Japan.
Italian, Portuguese, Dutch, Spanish, British traders and explorers
visited the country. St Francis Xavier established missions there and
baptized many in the Christian faith. After two centuries of general
toleration, with intervals of welcome and yet other intervals of
resolute massacre, in 1741 the last of the Europeans were ordered out of
the islands, the Japanese having decided that they wanted neither the
religion, the trade, nor the friendship of the White Man. The same
prohibitions were applied at the same time to Chinese traders. A
resolute policy of exclusiveness was adopted.

Japan seems to have learned absolutely nothing from her first contact
with European civilisation. She settled down to the old policy of
rigorous exclusiveness, and to a renewal of her tribal and religious
warfare, in the midst of which, like a strange flower in a rocky cleft,
flourished a dainty æstheticism. The nineteenth century thus dawned on
Japan, a bitterly poor country, made poorer by the devotion of much of
her energies to internal warfare and by the devotion of some of her
scanty supply of good land to the cultivation of flowers instead of
grain. The observer of the day could hardly have imagined more
unpromising material for the making of the modern Japanese nation,
organised with Spartan thoroughness for naval, military and industrial

The United States in 1853 led the way in the successful attempt of White
civilisation to open up trade relations with Japan. The method was
rude; and it was followed by resolute offers of "friendship," backed by
armed threats, from Great Britain, France, Russia and Portugal. The
Japanese wanted none of them. The feeling of the people was distinctly
anti-foreign. They wished to be left to their flowers and their family
feuds. But the White Man insisted. In 1864 a combination of Powers
forced the Straits of Shimonoseki. The Japanese were compelled by these
and other outrages to a feeling of national unity. In the face of a
foreign danger domestic feuds were forgotten. By 1869 Japan had
organised her policy on a basis which has kept internal peace ever since
(with the exception of the revolt of the Satsuma in 1884), and she had
resolved on fighting out with Russia the issue of supremacy in the
Pacific. Within a quarter of a century the new nation had established
herself as a Power by the sensational defeat, on land and sea, of China.
The Peace of Shimonoseki extended her territory to Formosa and the
Pescadores, and filled her treasury with the great war indemnity of
£57,000,000. She then won, too, a footing on the Asiatic mainland, but
was for the time being cheated of that by the interference of Europe, an
interference which was not repeated when, later, having defeated Russia
in war and having won an alliance with Great Britain, she finally
annexed Corea.

From the Peace of Shimonoseki in 1895 the progress of Japan has been
marvellous. In 1900 she appeared as one of the civilised Powers which
invaded China with a view to impress upon that Empire the duty a
semi-civilised Power owed to the world of maintaining internal order. In
1902 she entered into a defensive and offensive alliance with Great
Britain, by which she was guaranteed a ring clear from interference on
the part of a European combination in the struggle with Russia which she
contemplated. The treaty was a triumph of diplomatic wisdom. Appearing
to get little, Japan in real truth got all that her circumstances
required. A treaty binding Great Britain to come to her aid in any war
would have been hopeless to ask for, and not very useful when obtained,
for the Japanese attack on Russia might then have been the signal for a
general European war in which possibly a European combination would have
crippled Great Britain and then turned its united attention to the
destruction of Japan's nascent power. A treaty which kept the ring clear
for a single-handed struggle with Russia was better than that risk. In
return Japan gave nothing in effect except a pledge to make war on her
own immediate enemy, Russia, for the assistance of Great Britain if
necessity arose.

The conditions created by the Anglo-Japanese treaty of 1902 developed
naturally to the Battle of Mukden, the culminating point of a campaign
in which for the first time for many years the Yellow Race vanquished
the White Race in war. That Battle of Mukden not only established
Japan's position in the world. It made the warlike awakening of China
inevitable, and restored to the daylight again the long-hidden yet
always existing arrogance of Asia. Asia has ever nurtured an insolence
beside which any White Race pride is insignificant. That fact is made
patent during recurring epochs of history. The Persian Darius sent to
the Greeks for earth and water, symbols to acknowledge that "Persia
ruled the land and the oceans." The Huns later looked upon the White Men
whom they conquered as something lower than animals. The Turks, another
great Asiatic race to war against Europe, could compare the White Man
only to that unclean beast, the dog. The first European ambassadors who
went to China were forced to crawl with abject humility to the feet of
the Chinese dignitaries. In his secret heart--of which the European mind
knows so little--the Asiatic, whether he be Japanese, Chinese, or
Indian, holds a deep disdain for the White. The contempt we feel for
them is returned more than one hundredfold.

Mukden brought that disdain out of its slumber. The battle was therefore
an event of history more important than any since the fall of
Constantinople. For very many years the European hegemony had been
unquestioned. True, as late as 1795, Napoleon is credited with having
believed that the power of the Grand Turk might be revived and an
Ottoman suzerainty of Europe secured. But it was only a dream; more than
half a century before that the doom of the Turk, who had been the most
serious foe to Christian Europe, was sealed. From 1711 to 1905,
whatever questions of supremacy arose among the different European
Powers, there was never any doubt as to the superiority of the European
race over all coloured races. The White Man moved from one easy conquest
to another. In Asia, India, China, Persia and Japan were in turn
humbled. Africa was made the slave-farm of the White Race.

Now in the twentieth century at Mukden the White Race supremacy was
again challenged. It was a long-dormant though not a new issue which was
thus raised. From the times beyond which the memory of man does not
stretch, Asia had repeatedly threatened Europe. The struggle of the
Persian Empire to smother the Greek republics is the first of the
invasions which has been accurately recorded by historians; but probably
it had been preceded by many others. The waves of war that followed were
many. The last was the Ottoman invasion in the fourteenth century, which
brought the banners of Asia right up to the walls of Vienna, swept the
Levant of Christian ships, and threatened even the Adriatic; and which
has left the Turk still in the possession of Constantinople. But by the
beginning of the eighteenth century the fear of the Turks gaining the
mastery of Europe had practically disappeared, and after then the
Europeans treated the coloured races as subject to them, and their
territories as liable to partition whenever the method of division among
rival White nations could be agreed upon.

Mukden made a new situation. The European Powers were prompt to
recognise the fact. Doubt even came to Great Britain whether the part
she had played as foster-mother to this Asiatic infant of wonderful
growth had been a wise one. A peace was practically forced upon Japan, a
peace which secured for her at the moment nothing in the way of
indemnity, but little in the way of territorial rights, and not even the
positive elimination of her enemy from the Asiatic coast. True, she has
since won Corea on the basis of that peace and has made secure certain
suzerain rights in Manchuria, but this harvest had to be garnered by
resolute diplomacy and by maintaining a naval and military expenditure
after the war which called for an extreme degree of self-abnegation from
her people.

If the present position of affairs could be accepted as permanent, there
would be no "problem of the Pacific." That ocean would be Japan's
home-water. Holding her rugged islands with a veteran army and navy; so
established on the mainland of Asia as to be able to make a flank
movement on China; she is the one "Power in being" of the Pacific
littoral. But as already stated, the verdict of the war with Russia
cannot be taken as final. And soon the United States will come into the
Pacific with overwhelming force on the completion of the Panama
Canal--an event which is already foreshadowed in a modification of the
Anglo-Japanese treaty to relieve Great Britain of the possible
responsibility of going to war with America on behalf of Japan. The
permanence of the Japanese position as the chief Power of the Pacific
cannot therefore be presumed. The very suddenness with which her
greatness has been won is in itself a prompting to the suspicion that it
will not last. It has been a mushroom growth, and there are many
indications that the forcing process by which a Power has been so
quickly raised has exhausted the culture bed. In the character of her
population Japan is in some respects exceedingly rich. The events of the
past few years have shown them to possess great qualities of heroism,
patience and discipline. But they have yet to prove that they possess
powers of initiative, without which they must fail ultimately in
competition with peoples who make one conquest over Nature a
stepping-stone to another. And it is not wholly a matter of race
prejudice that makes many observers view with suspicion the "staying
power" of the character of a nation which thinks so differently from the
average European in matters of sex, in commercial honesty, and in the
obligations of good faith. Many of those who have travelled in the East,
or have done business with Japan, profess a doubt that an enduring
greatness can be built upon a national character which runs contrary in
most matters to our accepted ideas of ethics. They profess to see in the
present greatness of achievement marking Japanese national life a "flash
in the pan"--the astonishing precocity and quickness of progress of that
type of doomed infant which quickly flowers and quickly fades in the
European slums and which is known as "The Mongol" to medical science
because of a facial peculiarity which identifies it infallibly. "The
Mongol" of European child-life comes to an astonishingly early maturity
of brain: its smartness is marvellous. But it is destined always to an
early end from an ineradicable internal weakness which is, in some
strange way, the cause of its precocious cleverness.

Whether the Japanese cleverness and progressiveness will last or not,
the nation has to be credited with them now as a live asset. But apart
from the national character the nation possesses little of "natural
capital." There is practically no store of precious metals; a poor
supply of the useful minerals; small area of good land; and the local
fisheries have been exploited with such energy for many generations that
they cannot possibly be expanded in productivity now. The statesmen of
New Japan have certainly won some overseas Empire as an addition to the
resources available for a sound fabric of national greatness. But what
has been won is quite insufficient to weigh in the scale against the
"natural capital" of almost any of Japan's rivals in the Pacific.

For want of territory to colonise under her own flag, Japan has lost
many subjects to alien flags. Japanese settlements of some strength
exist on the Pacific coast of America, in the Hawaiian Islands, and in
parts of China. There is little doubt that Japanese policy has hoped
that in some cases at least her flag would follow her nationals. Talk,
not all of it quite irresponsible, has credited Japan with definite
designs on many Pacific settlements, especially the Hawaiian Group where
her nationals to-day outnumber any other single element of the
population. But there are now no islands or territories without a
protecting flag. Even when, as was said to be the case with Mexico and
another Latin-American country, a weak and friendly nation seems to
offer the chance of annexation of territory following a peaceable
penetration, there is the power of the United States to interpose a
veto. Japan thus cannot add to her natural resources without a war; and
she has not, it would seem, sufficient natural resources to back up a
war with the enemies she would have to meet now in the Pacific.

If she were to put aside dreams of conquest and Empire, has Japan a
sound future in the Pacific as a thriving minor manufacturing and
trading power? I must say that it seems to me doubtful. The nation has
drunk of the wine of life and could hardly settle down to a humdrum
existence. No peaceable policy could allow of a great prosperity, for
the reasons of natural poverty already stated. It would be a life of
drudgery without the present dream of glory. To study the Japanese
emigrant away from his own country is to understand that he has not the
patience for such a life. In British Columbia, in California, in Hawaii,
the same conclusion is come to by European fellow-residents, that the
Japanese worker is arrogant, unruly, unreliable. In Japan itself there
are signs that the industrial population will not tolerate for ever a
life of very poor living and very hard working if there is not a
definite and immediate benefit of national glory promised.

The position of Japan in the Pacific seems to me, then, that she cannot
reasonably expect to win in a struggle for its mastery: and yet that she
will inevitably be forced to enter into that struggle. A recent report
in a Tokio paper stated: "At a secret session of the Budget Commission
on February 3, Baron Saito, Minister of Marine, declared that the
irreducible minimum of naval expansion was eight battleships of the
super-Dreadnought class, and eight armoured cruisers of the same class,
which must be completed by 1920, construction being begun in 1913. The
cost is estimated at £35,000,000." And the paper (_Asahi Shimbun_) went
on to hint at the United States as the Power which had to be confronted.
That is only one of very many indications of Japanese national feeling.
She has gone too far on the path to greatness to be able to retire
safely into obscurity. She must "see it through." Feats of strength far
nearer to the miraculous than those which marked her astonishing victory
over Russia would be necessary to give Japan the slightest chance of
success in the next struggle for the hegemony of the Pacific.


[10] Since writing the above, the Japanese Government has revived in a
modified form the proposal for a State adoption, in part at least, of
the Christian religion. A communication to the Japanese Press on 20th
January 1912 from the Minister for Home Affairs stated:--"In order to
bring about an affiliation of the three religions, it is necessary to
connect religion with the State more closely, so as to give it
(religion) added dignity, and thus impress upon the public the necessity
of attaching greater importance to religious matters. The culture of
national ethics can be perfected by education combined with religion. At
present moral doctrines are inculcated by education alone, but it is
impossible to inculcate firmly fair and upright ideas in the minds of
the nation unless the people are brought into touch with the fundamental
conception known as God, Buddha, or Heaven, as taught in the religions.
It is necessary, therefore, that education and religion should go hand
in hand to build up the basis of the national ethics, and it is,
therefore, desirable that a scheme should be devised to bring education
and religion into closer relations to enable them to promote the
national welfare. All religions agree in their fundamental principles,
but the present-day conceptions of morals differ according to the time
and place and according to the different points of view. It is ever
evolving. It may, therefore, be necessary for Shintoism and Buddhism to
carry their steps towards Western countries. Christianity ought also to
step out of the narrow circle within which it is confined, and endeavour
to adapt itself to the national sentiments and customs, and to conform
to the national polity in order to ensure greater achievements. Japan
has adopted a progressive policy in politics and economics in order to
share in the blessings of Western civilisation. It is desirable to bring
Western thought and faith into harmonious relationship with Japanese
thought and faith in the spiritual world."

This proposal to change in one act the religion of a nation "to ensure
greater achievements" will perhaps do something to support the
contention, which will be put forward later, that a nation which takes
such a curious view of life is not capable of a real and lasting
greatness, however wonderful may be its feats of imitation.



China is potentially the greatest Power on the western littoral of the
Pacific. Her enormous territory has vast agricultural and mineral
resources. Great rivers give easy access to some of the best of her
lands. A huge population has gifts of patient labour and craftsmanship
that make the Chinaman a feared competitor by every White worker in the
world. In courage he is not inferior to the Japanese, as General Gordon
found. In intelligence, in fidelity and in that common sense which
teaches "honesty to be the best policy," the Chinaman is far superior to
the Japanese.

The Chinaman has been outstripped up to the present by the Japanese in
the acquirement of the arts of Western civilisation, not because of his
inferior mind, but because of his deeper disdain. He has stood aside
from the race for world supremacy on modern lines, not as one who is too
exhausted for effort, but as one who is too experienced to try. China
has in the past experimented with many of the vaunted ideas and methods
of the new civilisation, from gunpowder to a peerage chosen by
competitive examination, and long ago came to the conclusion that all
was vanity and vexation of spirit.

The Chinaman is not humble; not content to take an inferior place in the
world. He has all the arrogance of Asia. The name of "Heavenly Kingdom"
given to the land by its inhabitants, the grandiose titles assumed by
its rulers, the degrading ceremonies which used to be exacted from
foreigners visiting China as confessions of their inferiority to the
Celestial race, show an extravagant pride of birth. In the thirteenth
century, when Confucian China, alike with Christian Europe, had to fear
the growing power of the fanatical Mohammedans, a treaty of alliance was
suggested between France and China: and the negotiations were broken off
because of the claim of China that France should submit to her as a
vassal, by way of preliminary. The Chinaman's idea of his own importance
has not abated since then. His attitude towards the "foreign devils" is
still one of utter contempt. But at present that contempt has not the
backing of naval and military strength, and so in practice counts for

China cherishes the oldest of living civilisations. Her legendary
history dates back to 2404 B.C., her actual history to 875 B.C., when a
high state of mental culture had been reached, and a very advanced
material civilisation also; though some caution is necessary in
accepting the statements that at that time China made use of gunpowder,
of the mariner's compass, and of printing type. But certainly weaving,
pottery, metal-working, and pictorial art flourished. The noble height
to which philosophy had reached centuries before the Christian Era is
shown by the records of Confucianism and Taoism. Political science had
been also cultivated, and there were then Chinese Socialists to claim
that "everyone should sow and reap his own harvest."

There seem to have been at least two great parent races of the present
population of the Chinese Empire--a race dwelling in the valleys and
turning its thoughts to peace and the arts, and a race dwelling on the
Steppes and seeking joy in war. It was the Tartar and Mongol tribes of
the Steppes which sent wave after wave of attack westward towards
Europe, under chiefs the greatest of whom was Gengis Khan. But it was
the race of the valleys, the typical Chinese, stolid, patient,
laborious, who established ultimate supremacy in the nation, gradually
absorbing the more unruly elements and producing modern China with its
contempt for military glory. But the Mongols by their wars left a deep
impression on the Middle Ages, founding kingdoms which were tributary to
China, in Persia, Turkestan and as far west as the Russian Volga.

The earliest record of European relations with China was in the seventh
century, when the Emperor Theodosius sent an embassy to the Chinese
Emperor. In the thirteenth century Marco Polo visited the Court of the
Grand Khan at Pekin, and for a while fairly constant communication
between Europe and China seems to have been maintained, the route
followed being by caravan across Asia. Christian missionaries settled in
China, and in 1248 there is a record of the Pope and the Grand Khan
exchanging greetings.

When towards the end of the fourteenth century the Ming dynasty
supplanted the Mongol dynasty, communication with Europe was broken off
for more than a century. But in 1581 Jesuit missionaries again entered
China, and the Manchu dynasty of the seventeenth century at first
protected the Christian faith and seemed somewhat to favour Western
ideas. But in the next century the Christian missions were persecuted
and almost extirpated, to be revived in 1846. Since that date "the
mailed fist" of Europe has exacted from the Chinese a forced tolerance
of European trade and missions.

But Chinese prejudice against foreign intrusion was given no reason for
abatement by the conduct of the European Powers, as shown, for example,
in the Opium War of 1840. That prejudice, smouldering for long, broke
out in the savage fanaticism of the Boxer outbreak of 1900, which led to
a joint punitive expedition by the European Powers, in conjunction with
Japan. China had the mortification then of being scourged not only by
the "white devils" but also by an upstart Yellow Man, who was her near
and her despised neighbour. All China that knew of the expedition to
Pekin of 1900 and understood its significance, seems to have resolved
then on some change of national policy involving the acceptance of
European methods, in warfare at least. Responding to the stimulus of
Japan's flaunting of her success in acquiring the ways of the European,
China began to consider whether there was not after all something useful
to be learned from the Western barbarians. The older Asiatic country has
a deep contempt for the younger: but proof of Japan's superior position
in the world's estimation had become too convincing to be disregarded.
China saw Japan treated with respect, herself with contumely. She found
herself humiliated in war and in diplomacy by the upstart relative. The
reason was plain, the conclusion equally plain. China began to arm and
lay the foundations of a modern naval and military system. The national
spirit began to show, too, in industry. Chinese capital claimed its
right and its duty to develop the resources of China.

Early in the twentieth century "modern ideas" had so far established
themselves in China that Grand Councillor Chang Chih-tung was able,
without the step being equivalent to suicide, to memorialise the Throne
with these suggestions for reform:--

1. That the Government supply funds for free education.

2. That the Army and Navy be reorganised without delay.

3. That able and competent officials be secured for Government services.

4. That Princes of the blood be sent abroad to study.

5. That arsenals for manufacturing arms, ammunition, and other weapons
of war, and docks and shipbuilding yards for constructing warships, be
established without delay.

6. That only Chinese capital be invested in railway and mining enterprises.

7. That a date be given for the granting of a Constitution.

Chang Chih-tung may be taken as the representative of the new school of
Chinese thought. His book _Chuen Hsueh Pien_ (China's Only Hope) is the
Bible of the moderate reformers. He states in that book:--

"In order to render China powerful, and at the same time preserve our
own institutions, it is absolutely necessary that we should utilise
Western knowledge. But unless Chinese learning is made the basis of
education, and a Chinese direction given to thought, the strong will
become anarchists, and the weak slaves. Thus the latter end will be
worse than the former.... Travel abroad for one year is more profitable
than study at home for five years. It has been well said that seeing is
a hundred times better than hearing. One year's study in a foreign
institution is better than three years in a Chinese. Mencius remarks
that a man can learn foreign things best abroad; but much more benefit
can be derived from travel by older and experienced men than by the
young, and high mandarins can learn more than petty officials.... Cannot
China follow the _viam mediam_, and learn a lesson from Japan? As the
case stands to-day, study by travel can be better done in that country
than in Europe, for the following reasons.... If it were deemed
advisable, some students could afterwards be sent to Europe for a fuller

After the Russian-Japanese War Chinese students went to Japan in
thousands, and these students laid the foundation of the Republican
school of reformers which is the greatest of the forces striving for
mastery in China to-day. The flow of students to Japan was soon checked
by the then Chinese Government, for the reason that Republican
sentiments seemed to be absorbed in the atmosphere of Japan, despite the
absolutism of the Government there. In the United States and in Europe
the Chinese scholar was able, however, to absorb Western knowledge
without acquiring Republican opinions! There is some suggestion of a
grim jest on the part of the Chinese in holding to this view. It recalls
Boccaccio's story of the Christian who despaired of the conversion of
his Jewish friend when he knew that he contemplated a visit to Rome. The
Chinese seemed to argue that a safe precaution against acquiring
Republican views is to live in a Republican country. Chinese confidence
in the educational advantages offered by the United States has been
justified by results. American-educated Chinese are prominent in every
phase of the Reform movement in China, except Republican agitation. The
first Reform Foreign Minister in China, the first great native Chinese
railway builder, the first Chinese women doctors, the greatest native
Chinese banker, are examples of American training.

It would be outside the scope of this work to attempt to deal in any way
exhaustively with the present position in China. What the ultimate
outcome will be, it is impossible to forecast. At present a Republic is
in process of formation, after the baby Emperor through the Dowager
Empress had promulgated an edict stating:

"We, the Emperor, have respectfully received the following Edict from
her Majesty the Dowager:

"In consequence of the uprising of the Republican Army, to which the
people in the Provinces have responded, the Empire seethed liked a
boiling cauldron, and the people were plunged in misery. Yuan Shih-kai,
therefore, commanded the despatch of Commissioners to confer with the
Republicans with a view to a National Assembly deciding the form of
government. Months elapsed without any settlement being reached. It is
now evident that the majority of the people favour a Republic, and, from
the preference of the people's hearts, the will of Heaven is
discernible. How could we oppose the desires of millions for the glory
of one family? Therefore, the Dowager Empress and the Emperor hereby
vest the sovereignty in the people. Let Yuan Shih-kai organise with
full powers a provisional Republican Government, and let him confer with
the Republicans on the methods of establishing a union which shall
assure the peace of the Empire, and of forming a great Republic, uniting
Manchus, Chinese, Mongols, Mohammedans, and Tibetans."

But all men whom I have met who have had chances of studying Chinese
conditions at first hand, agree that the Chinese national character is
not favourable to the permanent acceptance of Republican ideas. If there
is one thing which seems fixed in the Chinese character it is
ancestor-worship, and that is essentially incompatible with
Republicanism.[3] But what seems absolutely certain is that a new China
is coming to birth. Slowly the great mass is being leavened with a new

Now a new China, armed with modern weapons, would be a terrible engine
of war. A new China organised to take the field in modern industry would
be a formidable rival in neutral markets to any existing nation. The
power of such a new China put at the disposal of Japan could at least
secure all Asia for the Asiatics and hold the dominant position in the
Northern Pacific. Possibly it could establish a world supremacy, unless
such a Yellow union forced White Races to disregard smaller issues and
unite against a common foe. Fortunately a Chinese-Japanese alliance is
not at present in the least likely. The Chinese hatred of the Japanese
is of long standing and resolute, though it is sometimes dissembled. The
Japanese have an ill-concealed contempt for the Chinese. Conflict is
more likely than alliance between the two kindred races.

Further, the Chinese will probably move far more slowly on any path of
aggression than did the Japanese, for they are intensely pacific. For
many generations they have been taught to regard the soldier as
contemptible, the recluse scholar as admirable. Ideas of overseas Empire
on their part are tempered by the fanatic wish of every Chinaman that
his bones should rest in his native land. It will only be in response to
enormous pressure that China will undertake a policy of adventure.

That pressure is now being engendered from within and without. From
without it is being engendered by insolent robberies of territory and
other outrages on the part of foreign Powers. More particularly of late
has the modern arrogance of Japan impressed upon the old-fashioned
arrogance of China the fact that the grave scholar, skilled in all the
lore of Confucius, is a worthless atom beside a drilled coolie who can
shoot straight. From within the pressure is being engendered by the
great growth of population. For some time past infanticide has been
common in China as a Malthusian check. Now European missionaries seek to
discourage that. European medicine further sets itself to teach the
Yellow Man to cope with plague, smallpox, and cholera, while European
engineering abates the terrors of flood and of crop failure.

Machiavelli would have found prompting for some grim aphorism in this
curious eagerness of Europe to teach the teeming millions of Asia to rid
themselves of checks on their greater growth, and thus to increase the
pressure of the Asiatic surplus seeking an outlet at the expense of
Europe. It is in respect to the urgent demand for room for an
overcrowding population that there exists alike to China and Japan the
strongest stimulus to warlike action in the Pacific. China in particular
wants colonies, even if they be only such colonies as provide
opportunities for her coolies to amass enough wealth to return in old
age to China. From the fertile basin of China there have been overflow
waves of humanity ever since there has been any record of history.
Before the era of White settlement in the Pacific the Chinese population
had pushed down the coast of Asia and penetrated through a great part of
the Malay Archipelago, an expansion not without its difficulties, for
the fierce Malay objected to the patient Chinaman and often the Chinaman
remained to fertilise but not to colonise the alien soil. By some
Providential chance neither the Chinaman nor the Japanese ever reached
to Australia in the early days of the Pacific, though there are records
of Japanese fishermen getting as far as the Hawaiian Group, a much more
hazardous journey. If the Asiatics had reached Australia the great
island would doubtless have become the southern province of Asia, for
its native population could have offered no resistance to the feeblest

In the past, however, the great natural checks kept the Asiatic
populations within some limits. Internal wars, famines, pestilences,
infanticide--all claimed their toll. Nature exercised on man the checks
which exist throughout the whole animal kingdom, and which in some
regions of biology are so stern that it is said that only one adult
survives of 5,000,000 spawn of a kind of oyster. Now European influence
is steadily directed in Asia to removing all obstacles to the growth of
population. When the Asiatics wish to fight among themselves Europe is
inclined to interfere (as at the time of the Boxer outbreak in China),
on the ground that a state of disorder cannot be tolerated. In India
internecine warfare is strictly prohibited by the paramount Power. In
Japan all local feuds have been healed by pressure from Europe and
America, and the fighting power of the people concentrated for external

Not alone by checking internal warfare does Europe insist on encouraging
the growth of the Asiatic myriads. European science suggests railways,
which make famine less terrible; flood prevention works which save
millions of lives. European moralists make war on such customs as the
suicide of young widows and the exposure for death of female children.
But, far more efficacious than all, European scientists come forward to
teach to the Asiatics aseptic surgery, inoculation, and the rest of the
wisdom of preventive and curative medicine. Sometimes Nature is stronger
than science. The Plague, for instance, still claims its millions. But
even the Plague diminishes before modern medical science.

In his _Health and Empire_ (1911), Dr Francis Fremantle tells of the
campaign against plague in India. He writes:

"The death-rate from plague in 1904 in the Lahore and Amritsar districts
in which I worked was 25 per 1000. Over 1,000,000 Indians died of plague
in 1904, over 1,000,000 in 1905; in 1906, 332,000, and it was thought
the end was in sight. But 640,000 died in the first four months of 1907;
in 1908, 321,000 died; in 1909 only 175,000, but in 1910 again very
nearly 500,000, and this year more than ever. The United Provinces had
barely been reached by the epidemic in 1904; now with a population equal
to that of the United Kingdom, they have been losing 20,000 every week;
and the Punjab 34,000 in one week, 39,000, 47,000, 54,000, 60,000 and so
on--over 430,000 in the first four months of this year in a population
of 25,000,000. Imagine Great Britain and Ireland losing the same
proportion--over 1,000,000 from plague in half a year. And India as a
whole has in fifteen years lost over 7,000,000 from plague. Why wonder
at her unrest?

"What, then, can the Government do? Extermination of rats is impossible;
disinfection on a large scale is impracticable; evacuation of villages
cannot be done voluntarily on any universal scale; the Government will
not apply compulsion, and such evacuation is quite useless without a
rigid cordon of police or military that will prevent communication
between one infected village and others not yet infected. A cordon, it
has been proved over and over again, cannot be maintained; the native
who wishes to pass it has only to present some official with a cautious
rupee. Extermination of rats in an Asiatic country has often failed; but
here is without a shadow of doubt the key to the problem. The methods
formerly adopted had been to give a capitation grant for every rat
brought to the appointed place, and before long it was found, for
instance in Bombay, that an extensive trade had grown up in the breeding
of rats, whereby, at a few annas apiece from the Government, many
families were able to sustain a comfortable existence.... But since
sentence on the rat-flea has been pronounced for the murder of 7,000,000
persons and over, the best method for his extermination will not be far

"It is often debated whether even half-measures are worth being
continued. Professor W. J. Simpson, in his exhaustive monograph on the
plague, and in 1907 in his _Croonian Lectures_, has shown how in history
epidemics of plague have come and gone in different countries with long
intervals between them, often of one hundred and thirty to one hundred
and fifty years. In the eighteenth century, for instance, India seems to
have been almost free of the plague, but early in the seventeenth
century it suffered severely. The present epidemic is assuming, as far
as we can trust previous records, unprecedented proportions; probably
after a few years it will die out again.

"An occasional cynic may argue that, since we have saved so many
thousands of lives annually from famine and wars, it may be just as well
to let the plague take their place. To such a pessimistic and inhuman
conclusion it is impossible for one moment to submit. It may be that for
economic reasons some parts of the Indian Empire would be happier if
their population were less dense; but it does not follow that we should
allow Death to stalk uninterrupted, unopposed, and apparently without
limit, throughout the country. Economics apart, we may yet be absolutely
convinced, whether as doctors or as statesmen, that it is our mission,
our duty, to protect the populations included under British rule to the
best of our ability against every scourge as it may arise; and therefore
it is urgent that such measures as we have be pushed forward with the
utmost vigour."

That tells (in a more convincing way, because of the impatience of the
doctor, accustomed to European conditions, at the slow result of work in
India) how resolute is the White Man's campaign against the Yellow Man's
death-rate in one part of Asia. Such a campaign in time must succeed in
destroying the disease against which it is directed and thus adding
further to the fecundity of Asia.

Nor is the fight against diseases confined to those parts of Asia under
direct White rule. The cult of White medicine spreads everywhere,
carried by Japanese as well as by European doctors and missionaries. Its
effects already show in the enormous increase of Asiatic population,
proved wherever definite figures are available. That growth adds year by
year to the danger that the Yellow Man will overrun the Pacific and
force the White Man to a second place in the ocean's affairs, perhaps
not even leaving him that.

An older and sterner school of thought would have condemned as fatuous
the White Races' humanitarian nurture of the Yellow Races. But the
gentler thought of to-day will probably agree with Dr Fremantle that the
White Man cannot "allow Death to stalk uninterrupted, unopposed" even
through the territory of our racial rivals. But we must give serious
thought to the position which is thus created, especially in view of the
"levelling" racial tendency of modern weapons of warfare. China has a
population to-day, according to Chinese estimates, of 433,000,000;
according to an American diplomatist's conclusions, of not much more
than half that total. But it is, without a doubt, growing as it never
grew before; and modern reform ideas will continue to make it grow and
render the menace of its overflow more imminent.

At present the trend of thought in China is pacific. But it is not
possible to be sure that there will not be a change in that regard with
the ferment of new ideas. The discussion to-day of a Republic in China,
of womanhood suffrage in China, of democratic socialism in China,
suggests that the vast Empire, which has been for so long the example of
conservative immobility most favoured by rhetoricians anxious to
illustrate a political argument, may plunge into unexpected adventures.
China has in the past provided great invaders of the world's peace. She
may in the near future turn again to the thoughts of military adventure.
The chance of this would be increased if in the settlement of her
constitutional troubles a long resort to arms were necessary. Then the
victorious army, whether monarchical or Republican, might aspire to win
for a new China recognition abroad.

It is a fortunate fact that supposing a revival of militancy in China, a
revival which is possible but not probable, the first brunt of the
trouble would probably fall upon Japan. At the present moment Japan is
the most serious offender against China's national pride. As the
conqueror of Corea and the occupier of Manchuria, she trespasses most of
all foreign Powers on the territories and the rights of China. After
Japan, Russia would have to expect a demand for a reckoning; Great
Britain would come third and might come into collision with an
aggressive China, either because of the existence of such settlements as
Hong Kong or because of the Thibetan boundary. A China in search of
enemies, however, would find no lack of good pretexts for quarrelling.
There are, for instance, the offensive and humiliating restrictions on
Chinese immigration of the United States, of Canada, New Zealand and

I find it necessary, however, to conclude that so far as the near
future is concerned, China will not take a great warrior part in the
determining of Pacific issues. She may be able to enforce a more
wholesome respect for her territorial integrity: she may push away some
intruders: she may even insist on a less injurious and contemptuous
attitude towards her nationals abroad. But she will not, I think, seek
greatness by a policy of aggression. There is no analogy between her
conditions and those of Japan at the time of the Japanese acceptance of
European arts and crafts. Japan at the time was a bitterly quarrelsome
country: she turned from civil to foreign war. China has been
essentially pacific for some centuries. Japan was faced at the outset of
her national career with the fact that she had to expand her territory
or else she could not hope to exist as a great Power. China has within
her own borders all that is necessary for national greatness.

If at a later date the Chinese, either from a too-thorough study of the
lore of European civilisation, or from the pressure of a population
deprived of all Malthusian checks and thus finding an outlet absolutely
necessary, should decide to put armies and navies to work for the
obtaining of new territory, the peril will be great to the White Man.
Such a Chinese movement could secure Asia for the Asiatics, and might
not stop at that point. But that danger is not of this decade, though
it may have to be faced later by the White Power which wins the
supremacy of the Pacific.


[3] A very clear statement as to the position in China was that given in
London during January of 1912 by Mr Kwei Chih, a secretary of the
Chinese Legation.

"None of the dynasties in China," he said, "has ever maintained a
tyrannical _régime_ for any length of time, least of all the Manchu
dynasty, the policy of which has consisted rather of a mixture of
paternalism and obscurantism than of hard repression of the people....
The present unanimous desire of the Chinese to remove the Manchu dynasty
arises solely from the fact that the Chinese have fully awakened to the
realisation that only a policy of thoroughgoing Westernisation can save
China from disruption and partition. The removal of the Manchu dynasty
is of no greater national moment to China than would be the fall of a
Cabinet to any European country. Personal animus enters, indeed, so
little into the determination of the new Chinese _régime_ that the
question of setting apart lands for the deposed dynasty, and even of
granting it ex-territorial privileges, may eventually be accepted in the
way of a solution. In regard to the adoption of Republican ideas, it may
be said that the Chinese statesman does not understand the meaning of
the Republican principle, and if a new _régime_ should declare itself
Republican, its Republicanism will be of a much more strongly democratic
type than any known to Europe. It will even be more popular in its
constitution than the American, and will far more fully seek the
development of the common weal than most bureaucratic systems bearing
the name. The suggested application of Christian principles to the new
_régime_ may be regarded as wholly impossible. Confucianism, by which
China stands or falls, is a secular philosophy, the only semblance of a
spiritual or religious tenet in which is the principle of
ancestor-worship, and though a theocratic idea is admitted in the
creation of the universe, the question of a life hereafter is wholly
excluded from its teachings."



Following the map of the North-Western Pacific littoral, the eye
encounters, on leaving the coast of China, the Philippine Islands, proof
of the ambition of the United States to hold a place in the Pacific.

It is a common fallacy to ascribe to the United States a Quakerish
temperament in foreign affairs. Certain catch-words of American local
politics have been given a fictitious value, both at home and abroad.
"Republican Simplicity," "The Rights of Man," "European Tyranny,"
"Imperial Aggression," "The Vortex of Militarism"--from these and
similar texts some United State publicists are wont to preach of the
tyranny of European kings and emperors; of their greed to swallow up
weak neighbours; and of the evils of the military and naval systems
maintained to gratify such greed. By much grandiose assertion, or by
that quiet implication which is more complete proof of a convinced mind
than the most grandiose of assertion, the American nation has been
pictured in happy contrast to others, pursuing a simple and peaceful
life; with no desire for more territory; no wish to interfere with the
affairs of others; in the world, but not of the world.

Astonishment that such professions should carry any weight at all in the
face of the great mass of facts showing that the American national
temper is exactly the reverse of Quakerish, is modified in the political
student by the fact that it is the rule for nations as well as
individuals to be judged in the popular estimation by phrases rather
than by facts. Ignoring the phrases of politicians and considering only
the facts, it will be found that the American people have Imperial
ambitions worthy of their ancestry and inseparable from the
responsibility towards civilisation which their national greatness

It was in the middle of the eighteenth century that the United States
began national housekeeping within a small territory on the seaboard of
the Atlantic. By the nineteenth century that area had extended over a
section of the continent of America as large almost as Europe. By the
twentieth century this Power, still represented as incurably "peaceful
and stay-at-home" by its leaders, was established in the Caribbean Sea,
on the Isthmus of Panama, in the North and South Pacific, along the
coast of Asia, and had set up firmly the principle that whatever affair
of the world demanded international attention, from a loan to China, to
the fate of an Atlantic port of Morocco, the United States had
"interests" which must be considered, and advice which must be
regarded. The only circumstance that genuinely suggests a Quaker spirit
in United States foreign diplomacy is her quaint directness of language.
More effete peoples may wrap every stage of a negotiation up to an
ultimatum in honeyed phrases of respect. America "tutoyers" all courts
and is mercilessly blunt in claim and warning.

It would be very strange if the United States were otherwise than
Imperial in spirit. Nations, like individuals, are affected by
biological laws; a young, strong nation is as naturally aggressive and
ambitious as a young, strong boy. Contentment with things as they are, a
disposition to make anxious sacrifices to the gods who grant peace, are
the signs of old age. If a boy is quite good his parents have a
reasonable right to suspect some constitutional weakness. A new nation
which really resembled what a great many of the American people think
the United States to be, would show as a morbid anomaly. No; the course
of the world's future history will never be correctly forecasted except
on the assumption that the United States is an aggressively Imperial
nation, having an influence at least equal to that of any European Power
in the settlement of international issues; and determined to use that
influence and to extend its scope year by year. In the Problem of the
Pacific particularly, the United States must be counted, not merely as a
great factor but the greatest factor.

If the American citizen of to-day is considered as though he were a
British citizen of some generations back, with a healthy young appetite
for conquest still uncloyed, some idea near to the truth will have been
reached. But since the deference exacted by public opinion nowadays
compels some degree of pretence and does not permit us to parade our
souls naked, it is improbable that the United States citizen of this
century will adopt the frank freebooting attitude of the Elizabethan
Englishman when he was laying the foundations of his Empire by methods
inspired somewhat by piracy as well as by patriotism. The American will
have to make some concession to the times and seek always a moral
sanction for the extension of his boundaries. Such a search, however, is
rarely made in vain when it is backed by a resolved purpose. It was
sufficient for Francis Drake to know that a settlement was Spanish and
rich. The attack followed. The United States needs to know that a
possession is foreign, is desirable, and is grossly ill-governed before
she will move to a remonstrance in the sacred name of Liberty. Since
good government is an ideal which seldom comes at all close to
realisation, and the reputation of no form of administration can survive
the ordeal of resolute foreign criticism, the practical difference is
slight. The American Empire will grow with the benediction always of a
high moral purpose; but it will grow.

It is interesting to recall the fact that at its very birth the United
States was invested by a writer of prophetic insight with the purple of
Empire. Said the _London Gazette_ of 1765:--"Little doubt can be
entertained that America will in time be the greatest and most
prosperous Empire that perhaps the world has ever seen." But the early
founders of the new nation, then as now, deceived themselves and others
with the view that a pacific little Republic, not a mighty Empire, was
their aim. The Imperial instinct showed, however, in the fact that the
baby nation had in its youngest days set up a formidable navy. It was
ostensibly "for the local defence of its shores," but naval power and
overseas Empire are inseparably linked.

The austere Republic began to grow in territory and influence at a rate
putting to shame the early feats of the Roman power. By 1893 the United
States had made it clear that she would not allow her independence to be
fettered in the slightest degree by any claims of gratitude from France:
and her Declaration of Neutrality in the European War then raging was a
clear statement of claim to be considered as a Power. The war with the
Barbary States in 1802 to suppress piracy was a claim to police rights
on the high seas, police rights which custom gives only to a paramount
sea Power. By the next year Spain and France had been more or less
politely relieved of all responsibilities in North America, and the
United States stretched from ocean to ocean, and from the Great Lakes to
the Gulf of Mexico.

It is upon the early eloquence of her founders as to the duty of the
United States to confine her attention strictly to America, that the
common misconception of America's place in foreign policy has been built
up. That talk, however, was in the first instance dictated largely by
prudence. Alexander Hamilton, who controlled the foreign policy of the
infant Republic at the outset, was particularly anxious that she should
find her feet before attempting any deeds of enterprise. In particular,
he was anxious that the United States should not, through considerations
of sentiment, be drawn into the position of a mere appanage of France.
He set the foundations of what was known afterwards as the "Monroe
doctrine," with the one thought that, at the time, a policy of
non-interference with European affairs was a necessary condition of free
growth for the young nation. The same idea governed Washington's
farewell address in 1796 with its warning against "foreign

Afterwards the "Monroe doctrine"--deriving its name from a message by
President Monroe in 1823--was given the meaning that the United States
would not tolerate any interference with the affairs of the American
continent by Europe. Finally the "Monroe doctrine," which had begun with
an affirmation of America's non-participation in European affairs, and
had developed into a declaration against European interference with
American affairs, took its present form, which is, in effect, that over
all America the United States has a paramount interest which must not be
questioned, and that as regards the rest of the world she claims an
equal voice with other Powers. Yet, though that is the actual position,
there is still an idea in some minds that the Monroe doctrine is an
instrument of humbleness by which the United States claims the immunity
of America from foreign interference and guarantees foreign countries
from American interference.

It will be of value to recall, in illustration of the rapid growth of an
aggressive national pride in the United States, the circumstances which
led up to Mr. President Monroe's formal message in 1823. The dawn of the
nineteenth century found the young American nation, after about a
quarter of a century's existence, fairly on her feet; able to vindicate
her rights abroad by a war against the Barbary pirates: given by the
cession of Louisiana from France, a magnificent accession of territory.
The Empire of Spain was crumbling to pieces, and between 1803 and 1825
the Latin-American Republics in South and Central America were being
established on the ruins of that Empire. Spain, her attention engaged in
European wars, was able to do little or nothing to assert herself
against the rebellious colonies. But in 1815, Napoleon having been
vanquished, the Holy Alliance in Europe attempted to reassert the old
power of the European monarchies. The terror of Napoleon's army had
forced the kings of the earth into a union which forgot national
differences and was anxious only to preserve the Divine Right of Kings.
The formation of this Holy Alliance was viewed with suspicion and
dislike in the United States, and when in 1823 the Alliance raised the
question of joint action by European monarchies to restore Spanish rule
in South America, the United States responded with Monroe's famous
message forbidding any European interference on the continent of
America. Such European colonies as already existed would be tolerated,
and that was all. The message stated:

    "The American continents by the free and independent conditions
    which they have assumed are henceforth not to be considered as
    subjects for future colonisation by any European Power.

    "We could not view any interposition for purpose of oppressing them
    or controlling in any other manner their destiny by any European
    Power in any other way than as the manifestation of an unfriendly
    disposition towards the United States."

That "Monroe doctrine" was destined to be extended greatly in scope. In
1845 Mr. President Polk declared that no future European colony should
be planted on any part of the North American continent, and laid it down
as the duty of the United States "to annex American territory lest it be
annexed by European countries." True to that faith, he was responsible
for the annexation of Texas, Oregon and California. The United States
claim to overlordship of North America was still more remarkably
extended in 1867, when a protest was entered against the Federation of
the Canadian Provinces. The protest was not insisted upon then, though
in 1870 Mr. President Grant revived the spirit of the protest with his
forecast of "the end of European political connection with this
continent." The Venezuela controversy between Great Britain and the
United States in 1895 was responsible for another extension of the
Monroe doctrine. It was then claimed that "foreign colonies ought to
cease in this hemisphere." Insistence on that would, however, have led
to a war in which Great Britain probably would have had the assistance
of other European Powers affected; and the Monroe doctrine receded a

Exactly how this chief article of the United States foreign policy
stands to-day one cannot say. Certainly the Monroe doctrine does not
mean, as it was once supposed to mean, that the United States in return
for foreign abstention from interference in American affairs pledges
herself to keep apart from all extra-American affairs. In world politics
she claims and exercises the privileges to which her vast resources and
her high state of civilisation are the warrants. In regard to American
affairs the Monroe doctrine clearly forbids any further European
colonisation in North or South America, and constitutes the United
States as the Suzerain Power of all the Latin-American Republics
(whether they are willing or not). What else it will be found to mean
will depend on the circumstances of the moment and the feelings of the
newspaper proprietors who exercise so great an influence on the
American man-in-the-street, the governing factor in shaping his
country's foreign policy. In European countries, however democratic, the
man-in-the-street has rarely any immediate authority over Foreign
Affairs. In Great Britain, for example, the questions of the relations
of the Government with other countries are not canvassed before the
voters. The close oligarchy of the Cabinet (acting often with the
Opposition Front Bench) comes to decisions of peace and war, of treaty
and _entente_, and, after decision, allows Parliament and the electorate
to acquiesce. But in the United States foreign policy is actually
dictated by the voters; and that means, in effect, by the newspapers. On
occasion the Monroe doctrine has already been interpreted into a notice
to quit to all European Powers holding settlements on the American
continent. It may in the near future revive that claim to paramount and
exclusive authority, and it may cover a declaration of direct suzerainty
over Mexico, and over the smaller republics intervening between the
United States border and the Panama Canal. In most Latin-American
republics disorder is the rule rather than the exception; and it may
become at any moment the honest opinion of the man-in-the-street of the
United States that the Panama Canal is too important to civilisation to
be left to the chances of interference from less stable governments than
his own.

These conclusions are inevitable to anyone making any study of American
history and the American character. They are not hostile criticisms.
They are rather appreciations. A great nation with a belief in its
destiny must be "Imperialist" in spirit, because it has a natural desire
to spread the blessings of its rule. The people of the United States
believe as strongly in themselves as did the ancient Hebrews, and all
must have a genuine respect for that fierce spirit of elect nationality
which made the Hebrews found a great nation on a goat-patch. In
Elizabethan England the same spirit flourished and was responsible for
the founding of the British Empire. (It survives still in the British
Isles, though somewhat spasmodically.) There is no ground at all either
for wonder or for complaint in the fact that Imperialism has been born
to vigorous life in the United States, where the people of "God's own
country" are firm in these two articles of faith: that any interference
in the affairs of the United States is unjust, unnecessary, tyrannical
and impious; that any United States interference with another nation is
a necessary and salutary effort on behalf of civilisation. Let no man of
British blood complain. But let no one in making calculations of world
policy be deceived into any other conclusion than that the United States
is the great Imperial force of this century, and also the one Power that
has enough of the splendid illusions of youth to indulge in crusading
wars, for which Europe nowadays is too old and cautious.

In the countries of Europe other than Great Britain that which I have
stated is coming to be generally recognised, and if at any time a
combination could be proposed with any hope of success "to put America
in her place," the combination would be formed and the Old World would
grapple with the New to try conclusions. Without Great Britain, however,
such an alliance would have at present no chance of success, and British
adherence is not within the realm of practical thought to-day.

The Imperialist tendency of United States policy is shown with
particular clarity in the history of the Pacific Ocean. Very early in
her life the vigorous young nation saw the Fates beckoning her across
the Pacific. The downfall of the Spanish power in North America left the
United States heir to a great stretch of rich coast line, including the
noble province of California. Russia was ousted from the north-west
coast of the Continent by a wise purchase. Before then, American whalers
sailing out of Boston had begun to exploit the Southern Pacific. Their
whaling trips brought back knowledge of the Hawaiian or Sandwich Group,
and, following exactly the methods of British colonisation, American
missionaries were the pioneers of American nationalisation. As far back
as 1820 Hiram Bingham preached his first sermon at Honolulu from the
text, "Fear not, for, behold, I bring you glad tidings of great joy." A
handsome church now marks the gratitude of his native converts. With
equal justice Bingham's American compatriots might have set up a great
statue to him as the first warden of the Marches of the Pacific for the
United States. For from that day the annexation of Hawaii was
inevitable. The process took the familiar course. First the United
States Republic exercised a benevolent suzerainty over the Hawaiian
kingdom. Then the blessing of free institutions was bestowed on the
natives by the foundation of an Hawaiian Republic. The next step was
definite annexation. Following that, came steps for the formation of a
great naval base at Honolulu.

When I visited the Hawaiian Group in the spring of 1909 the work of
fortifying Honolulu was being pushed on with great vigour, and the
American military and civil authorities boasted of their intention to
make it the Gibraltar of the Pacific. The city of Honolulu has at
present a very small harbour, a little bay to which access is given by
an opening in the coral reefs which surround the island. This port would
hardly afford shelter to a squadron of cruisers. But to the left as one
enters is Pearl Harbour, a magnificent stretch of land-locked water
sufficient to float a great Fleet. But Pearl Harbour basin in its
natural state is too well protected, there being no means of access
except for very small boats. American energy is now remedying that, and
a deep-water channel is being cut from Honolulu Harbour to Pearl Harbour
to take vessels of the largest draught at all tides. When that channel
is completed, Pearl Harbour will be at once commodious and easily
protected. The single narrow entrance will be dominated by the guns of
Malakiki Hill, a great eminence, somewhat like Gibraltar in shape, to
the right of the town, which commands the sea-front east and west: and
within Pearl Harbour the American Pacific Fleet will find a safe haven.
It will be absolutely impregnable from the sea. Hostile ships
approaching Honolulu would have to steer straight for Malakiki and then
defile amid the coral reefs past its guns before the entrance to Pearl
Harbour would open before them.

But land defence has also to be taken into account. The chief male
element of the Hawaiian population is not American, not native Hawaiian.
It is Japanese. The Mikado's subjects represent now the largest fighting
element in the population, outnumbering even the natives. These
Japanese, imported as coolies for the sugar-fields, are mostly men of
military training. Further influx of them has now been stopped, not
under an Immigration Restriction Act, but by private treaty with Japan;
and, as a measure of precaution, an Arms Registration Ordinance provides
that no citizen shall have in his possession firearms unless he is
licensed by the Government. But this precaution would be in vain if
Japan ever seriously thought of using her 50,000 soldier-citizens in the
Hawaiian Group against the United States; for the whole of the fishing
industry is in the hands of the Japanese, and their sampans could land
arms at various places on the islands with ease. Such a contingency has
been foreseen in the laying out of Honolulu as a naval base, and the
land fortifications are designed with the same thoroughness as those
designed to beat off a sea attack.

A glance at the map will show that the Power which holds Hawaii with a
powerful Fleet can dominate the whole of the Northern Pacific,
threatening every point east and west. The American position there is
weakened by only one circumstance, the great Japanese population. This,
though it may not be recruited with further drafts of males from its
native source, will always be a very considerable, if not the most
considerable, element of the Hawaiian population, for most of the
coolies are married, and the Japanese abroad as well as at home fills
the cradle industriously.

I remember on the morning of April 1, 1909, coming into Honolulu city
from the Moana Hotel on the sea-beach, I found the tram rushed by
Japanese at all the stopping places. Two cruisers of their navy had
entered the harbour--cruisers which were once upon a time the Russian
_Variag_ and _Koreitz_. All Japan in Honolulu was making holiday. A
fleet of sampans (the Japanese fishing-vessel) surrounded the ships,
which commemorated so signally a great and successful war. The water
front was lined with Japanese, the women and children mostly in their
national costume. One Japanese father came on to the tram with seven
boys, the eldest of whom did not seem more than ten years of age.
Asked, he said that they were all his own children. There will never be
a lack of a big Japanese population in Hawaii.

The definite acquisition of Hawaii may be fairly dated from 1851. Before
then there had been a significant proof of America's gaze turning
westward by the appointment in 1844 of Mr Caleb Cushing as the United
States Ambassador to the Court of China. A little later (1854) the
American Power found the Japanese policy of exclusiveness intolerable,
and United States warships broke a way into Japanese ports. It had also
been decided by then that the task, originally undertaken by a French
Company, of cutting a waterway across the Panama Isthmus should be the
responsibility of the United States. British susceptibilities on the
point were soothed by the Clayton-Bulwer treaty guaranteeing the
neutrality of the canal, a treaty which was subsequently abrogated in
response to the increasing deference which the growing power of the
American Republic could exact. That abrogation created the present
position which gives the United States sole control of that canal, and
the right to fortify its entrances.

By the middle of the nineteenth century, therefore, the United States, a
Power which some people still insist on regarding as an essentially
domestic character interested only in purely American affairs, had
established herself in a commanding strategical position in the North
Pacific, had constituted herself the arbiter of Japanese national
manners, and had obtained the control of the future waterway from the
Atlantic to the Pacific. The second half of the same century was
destined to see an even more remarkable Imperial expansion. The
misgovernment of Cuba by Spain became intolerable to American public
opinion, and in 1898 war was declared with the avowed purpose of
conferring the blessings of freedom on the people of Cuba. If one
accepted the nonsensical view that the United States is a Power lifted
above ordinary human nature by some mysterious racial alchemy, it would
be difficult to understand why a war to free Cuba should also have been
waged in another ocean to acquire the Philippines. But, looking at the
matter in a sane light, it was natural that, being engaged in a war with
Spain, the United States should strike at Spain wherever a blow was
possible and should destroy the Spanish power in the Pacific Ocean as
well as in the Caribbean Sea. Besides, the opportunity offered of
stretching the arm of America right across the Pacific to the very coast
of Asia. The Filipinos did not relish the substitution for the weak rule
of Spain of the strong rule of the United States, and American
Imperialism had the experience of having to force, by stern warfare on
the liberated, acceptance of its rôle of liberator. Perhaps the
experience taught it some sympathy with older players at the game of
Empire-making: certainly it did not abate its ardour in the good work.

So much for the past history of the United States in the Pacific. A
forecast of her influence on the future of the ocean is clearly
indicated by the past. The United States spread from the east of the
North American continent to the west, because there is no method known
to prevent the extension of a highly civilised, a young, an ardent
nation at the expense of backward, effete and tired peoples. It was
impossible that either the Red Indian tribes or the picturesque old
settlements of the Californian Spanish should stand in the way of the
American Republic stretching from ocean to ocean. Once the United States
was established on the Pacific coast, it was equally inevitable that the
arm of her power should stretch across the ocean. The acquisition of the
Hawaiian Group was necessary for the sound defence of the coast. The
American trading ships which sought the coast of Asia and found barbaric
barriers against commerce being battered down by European venturers, had
to do as the other White Men did. The flag thus had to follow in the
wake of the trade. It was all natural, necessary and ultimately
beneficial to civilisation. Equally inevitable will be the future
expansion of the United States in the Pacific. The overwhelming strength
of her industrial organisation will give her a first call on the neutral
markets of the ocean--_i.e._ those markets to which she has the same
right of access as her trade rivals. As the tendency shows for the area
of those neutral markets to narrow through coming under the domination
of various Powers, the United States will seek to extend her domination
too. The protection of what she has will enforce the need of acquiring
other strategical points. So her Pacific possessions will grow, almost
unconsciously, just as the British Empire grew.



Off the coast of China at a point where, in a strategical map the
"spheres of influence" of Japan and the United States and Germany would
impinge, is the island of Hong Kong, the Far East station of the British
Empire. Further south, in the Malay Peninsula, is Singapore, standing
guard over the entrance to the Indian Ocean. On these two coaling
stations British naval power in the North Pacific is based. The
abandonment of either of them is unthinkable to-day, yet neither was
taken possession of until the nineteenth century--Singapore in 1819,
Hong Kong in 1841. In the South Pacific there was shown an even stronger
hesitation in acquiring territory.

Why Great Britain entered so reluctantly into the Pacific as a
colonising Power may probably be explained by the fact that at the time
the ocean came to be exploited British earth hunger had been satiated.
The unsuccessful war which attempted to hold the American colonies to
the Mother Country, had made her doubtful whether overseas dominions
were altogether a blessing and whether the advantage to be gained from
them outweighed the responsibilities which their holding entailed. It
seemed to be the natural conclusion from the American War of
Independence, that once a colony or a group of colonies arrived at the
stage of growth which allowed it to be of some use to the Mother
Country, the inevitable next development was for it to throw off the
bonds of kinship and enter upon a career of independence at the price of
an expensive and humiliating war to its parent. Thus, whilst British
sailors were to the front in the exploration of the Pacific, British
statesmen showed a great reluctance to take any advantage of their
discoveries; and it was a series of accidents rather than any settled
purpose which planted the Anglo-Saxon race so firmly in this ocean.
India, it must be noted, a century ago was a country having very little
direct concern with the Pacific. The holding of the Indian Empire did
not depend on any position in the Pacific. That situation has since
changed, and Great Britain would be forced to an interest in the Pacific
by her Indian Empire if she had no other possessions in the ocean.

In an earlier chapter on Japan, something has been written concerning
the reasons which would argue for the absence of an Imperial impulse in
the Japanese islands and its presence in the British islands. The
inquiry then suggested as to the instincts of expansion and dominion
which were primarily responsible for the growth of the British Empire is
full of fascination for the historian. If it comes to be considered
carefully, the Empire-making of the British people was throughout the
result of a racial impulse working instinctively, spasmodically, though
unerringly, towards an unseen goal, rather than of a designed and
purposeful statesmanship.

The racial origin of the British people dictated peremptorily a policy
of oversea adventure, and that adventure led inevitably to colonisation.
In the beginning Britain was a part of Gaul, a temperate and fertile
peninsula which by right of latitude should have had the temperature of
Labrador, but which, because of the Gulf Stream, enjoyed a climate
singularly mild and promotive of fecundity. When the separation from the
mainland came because of the North Sea cutting the English Channel, the
Gallic tribes left in Britain began to acquire, as the fruits of their
gracious environment and their insular position, an exclusive patriotism
and a comparative immunity from invasion. These made the Briton at once
very proud of his country and not very fitted to defend its shores.

With the Roman invasion there came to the future British race a benefit
from both those causes. The comparative ease of the conquest by the
Roman Power, holding as it did the mastery of the seas, freed the
ensuing settlement by the conquerors from a good deal of the bitterness
which would have followed a desperate resistance. The Romans were
generous winners and good colonists. Once their power was established
firmly, they treated a subject race with kindly consideration. Soon,
too, the local pride of the Britons affected their victors. The Roman
garrison came to take an interest in their new home, an interest which
was aided by the singular beauty and fertility of the country. It was
not long before Carausius, a Roman general in Britain, had set himself
up as independent of Italy, and with the aid of sea-power he maintained
his position for some years. The Romans and the Britons, too, freely
intermarried, and at the time when the failing power of the Empire
compelled the withdrawal of the Roman garrison, the south of Britain was
as much Romanised as, say, northern Africa or Spain.

Thus from the very dawn of known history natural position and climate
marked out Britain as the vat for the brewing of a strenuous blood. The
sea served her "in the office of a wall or of a moat defensive to a
house" to keep away all but the most vigorous of invaders. The charm and
fertility of the land made it certain that a bold and vigorous invader
would be tempted to become a colonist and not be satisfied with robbing
and passing on.

With the decay of the Roman Empire, and the withdrawal of the Roman
legions to the defence of Rome, the Romanised Britons were left
helpless. Civilisation and the growth of riches had made them at once
more desirable objects of prey, and less able to resist attack. The
province which Rome abandoned was worried on all sides by the incursion
of the fierce clans of the north and the west. A decision, ultimately
wise, judged by its happy results, but at the moment disastrous, induced
some of the harried Britons to call in to their aid the Norsemen
pirates, who at the time, taking advantage of the failing authority of
Rome, were swarming out from Scandinavia and from the shores of the
Baltic in search of booty. The Angles, the Saxons, the Jutes, were
willing enough to come to Britain as mercenaries, even more willing to
stay as colonists. An Anglo-Saxon wave swept over the greater part of
England, and was stopped only by the mountains of Wales or of Scotland.
That was the end of the Britons as the chief power in Britain, but they
mingled with their conquerors to modify the Anglo-Saxon type with an
infusion of Celtic blood. In the mountainous districts the Celtic blood
continued to predominate, and does to this day.

The Anglo-Saxons would have been very content to settle down peacefully
on the fat lands which had fallen to them, but the piratical nests from
which they themselves had issued still sent forth broods of hungry
adventurers, and the invasions of the Danes taught the Anglo-Saxons that
what steel had won must be guarded by steel. They learned, too, that any
race holding England must rely upon sea-power for peaceful existence.
After the Danish, the last great element in the making of the present
British race, was the Norman. The Normans were not so much foreigners
as might be supposed. The Anglo-Saxons of the day were descendants of
sea-pirates who had settled in Britain and mingled their blood with the
British. The Normans were descendants of kindred sea-pirates who had
settled in Gaul, and mingled their blood with that of the Gauls and
Franks. The two races, Anglo-Saxon and Normans, after a while combined
amicably enough, the Anglo-Saxon blood predominating, and the British
type was evolved, in part Celtic, in part Danish, in part Anglo-Saxon,
in part Norman--a hard-fighting, stubborn adventurous race, which in its
making from such varied elements had learned the value of compromise,
and of the common-sense principle of give-and-take. One can see that it
was just the race for the work of exploration and colonisation.

When this British people, thus constituted, were driven back to a
sea-frontier by the French nation, it was natural that they should turn
their energies overseas. To this their Anglo-Saxon blood, their Danish
blood, their Norman blood prompted. The Elizabethan era, which was the
era of the foundation of the British Empire overseas, was marked by a
form of patriotism which was hard to distinguish in some of its
manifestations from plain robbery. The fact calls for no particular
condemnation. It was according to the habit of thought of the time. But
it is necessary to bear in mind that the hunt for loot and not the
desire for territory was the chief motive of the flashing glories of the
Elizabethan era of seamanship; for that is the explanation why there
was left as the fruit of many victories few permanent settlements.

Drake was the first English naval leader to penetrate to the Pacific.
His famous circumnavigation of the world is one of the boldest exploits
of history. Drake's log entry on entering the Pacific stirs the blood:

"Now, as we were fallen to the uttermost parts of these islands on
October 28, 1578, our troubles did make an end, the storm ceased, and
all our calamities (only the absence of our friends excepted) were
removed, as if God all this while by His secret Providence had led us to
make this discovery, which being had according to His will, He stayed
His hand."

On this voyage Drake put in at San Francisco, which he named New Albion.
He went back to Europe through the East Indies and around Africa. But
Drake made no attempt at colonisation. Looting of the Spanish treasure
ships was the first and last object of his cruise. What was, according
to our present lights, a more honourable descent upon the Pacific was
that of Admiral Anson in the eighteenth century. He, in 1740, took a
Fleet round the stormy Horn to subdue the Philippines and break the
power of Spain in the Pacific. The force thought fitting for such an
enterprise in those days was 961 men! Anson did not subdue the
Philippines; but they were guarded by the scurvy, which attacked the
English Fleet, rather than by the Spanish might, and the little
disease-racked English squadron was able to cripple the Spanish power in
the Pacific by the mere dread of its presence. Anson took prizes and
made them masquerade before the enemy's coast as hostile warships, and
paralysed the Spanish commerce in those seas. He returned to England
with only 335 men out of his original complement of 961. Practically all
the deaths had been from disease. But again the idea of the Pacific
expedition was not to colonise but to strike a blow at a rival European
Power. It was not until the nineteenth century that Great Britain
established herself on the western flank of the North Pacific.

So far as the South Pacific was concerned British indifference was
complete, and it was shared by other nations. In the days when the
fabled wealth of the Indies was the magnet to draw men of courage and
worth to perilous undertakings by sea and land, there was nothing in the
South Pacific to attract their greed, and nothing, therefore, to
stimulate their enterprise. The Spaniard, blundering on America in his
quest for a western sea-passage to the ivory, the gold, and the spices
of India, found there a land with more possibilities of plunder than
that which he had originally sought. He was content to remain, looting
the treasuries of the Mexicans and of the Peruvians for metals, and
laying the forests of Central America under contribution for precious
woods. He ventured but little westward, and the Hawaiian Islands
represented for a time the extreme western limit of his adventures.
Following him for plunder came the English, and they too were content to
sweep along the western coast of South America without venturing further
towards the unknown west.

From another direction the sea-route to India was sought by Portuguese,
and Dutch, and English and French. Groping round the African coast, they
came in time to the land of their desires, and found besides India and
Cathay, Java, the Spice Islands, and other rich groups of the Malay
Archipelago. But they, just as the Spaniards, did not venture west from
South America; and neither Portuguese, Dutch, French nor English set the
course of their vessels south from the East Indies.

It was thus Australia remained for many years an unknown continent. And
when at last navigators, more bold or less bound to an immediate greed,
touched upon the shores of Australia, or called at the South Sea
Islands, they found little that was attractive. In no case had the
simple natives won to a greed for gold and silver, and so they had no
accumulations of wealth to tempt cupidity. In the case of Australia the
coast-line was dour and forbidding, and promised nothing but sterility.

The exploring period in which the desire for plunder was the chief
motive passed away, having spared the South Pacific. It was therefore
the fate of Australia, of New Zealand, and of most of the islands of
Polynesia and Melanesia, to be settled under happier conditions, and to
be spared the excesses of cruelty which marked the European invasion of
the West Indies and the Americas. The Newest World began its
acquaintance with civilisation under fairly happy auspices.

It was not until the middle of the seventeenth century that a scientific
expedition brought the South Pacific before the attention of Britain. A
transit of Venus across the sun promised to yield valuable knowledge as
to the nature of solar phenomena. To observe the transit under the best
conditions, astronomers knew that a station in the South Seas was
necessary, and Lieutenant Cook, R.N., an officer who had already
distinguished himself in the work of exploration, was promoted to be
Captain and entrusted to lead a scientific expedition to Otaheite. Added
to his commission was an injunction to explore the South Seas if time
and opportunity offered. Captain Cook was of the type which makes time
and opportunity. Certainly there was little in the equipment of his
expedition to justify an extension of its duties after the transit of
Venus had been duly observed. But he took it that his duty was to
explore the South Seas, and explore them he did, incidentally annexing
for the British Empire the Continent of Australia.

That was in 1770. But still there was so little inviting in the prospect
of settlement in the South Seas that it was some eighteen years before
any effort was made to follow up by colonisation this annexation by
Captain Cook. When the effort was made it was not on very dignified
lines. The American colonies had at one time served as an outlet for the
overflow of the British prisons. The War of Independence had closed that
channel. The overcrowding of the British prisons became desperate, and,
because it was necessary to find some relief for this--not because it
was considered advantageous to populate the new possession--the First
Fleet sailed for the foundation of Australia in 1788.

We shall see in subsequent chapters how the reluctance of the governing
Power of the British race in the Home Country to establish an Empire in
the South Pacific found a curious response in the stubborn resoluteness
of the colonists who settled in Australia and New Zealand to be more
English than the English themselves, to be as aggressively Imperialistic
almost as the men of the Elizabethan era. (What might almost be called
the "Jingoism" of the British nations in the South Pacific must have a
very important effect in settling the mastery of that ocean.) In the
present chapter the establishment of the British Power in the North
Pacific chiefly will be considered.

Singapore is to-day the capital of the three Straits Settlements--
Singapore, Penang, and Malacca, but it is the youngest of the three
settlements. Malacca is the oldest. It was taken possession of by the
Portuguese under Albuquerque in 1511, and held by them until 1641, when
the Dutch were successful in driving them out. The settlement remained
under the Government of the Dutch till 1795, when it was captured by
the English, and held by them till 1818, at which date it was restored
to the Dutch, and finally passed into British hands in pursuance of the
treaty with Holland of 1824. By that treaty it was arranged that the
Dutch should leave the Malay Peninsula, the British Government agreeing
at the same time to leave Sumatra to the Dutch. When Malacca was taken
possession of by the Portuguese in 1511, it was one of the great
centres for the commerce of the East; but under Dutch rule it dwindled,
and Penang acquired a monopoly of the trade of the Malayan Peninsula
and Sumatra, together with a large traffic with China, Siam, Borneo,
the Celebes, and other places in the Archipelago. When Singapore was
established Penang in its turn had to yield the first place to the new

Singapore was acquired for Britain by Sir Stamford Raffles in 1819, by
virtue of a treaty with the Johore princes. It was at first subordinate
to Bencoolen in Sumatra, but in 1823 it was placed under the Government
of Bengal; it was afterwards incorporated in 1826, with Penang and
Malacca, and placed under the Governor and Council of the Incorporated
Settlements. Singapore is now one of the great shipping ports of the
world, served by some fifty lines of steamers, and with a trade of over
20,000,000 tons a year. The harbour of Singapore is fortified, and the
port is indicated by one advanced school of British Imperialists as the
future chief base of a Fleet, contributed to by India, Australia, New
Zealand, South Africa, and Canada, and kept to a standard of strength
equal to that available to any other two Powers in the Pacific. Captain
Macaulay, in a strategical scheme for Imperial Defence which has been
received with deep attention in Great Britain, suggests:--

"The influence which an Indian Ocean Fleet, based on Colombo and
Singapore, would have on Imperial Defence can hardly be exaggerated. The
Indian Ocean--a British Mediterranean to the Pacific--with its openings
east and west in our hands, is a position of readiness for naval action
in the Western Pacific, the South Atlantic, or the Mediterranean. In the
first case it influences the defence of Canada and the Australasian
States; in the second, that of South Africa. An Indian Ocean Fleet can
reinforce, or be reinforced by the Fleets in European waters, if the
storm centre be confined to Europe or to the Pacific. As regards the
direct naval defence of the Australasian Provinces, no better position
could be chosen than that of a Fleet based on Singapore, with an
advanced base at Hong Kong, because it flanks all possible attack on
them. An advanced flank defence is better than any direct defence of so
large a coast-line as that of Australia from any point within it.
Moreover, Singapore and Hong Kong are much nearer to the naval bases of
any Powers in the Western Pacific than those countries are to Australia
or to Canada. Hence, in operations for the defence of any Province, they
favour offensive-defensive action on our part. And offensive-defensive
is the great characteristic of naval power. Any East Asian Power
contemplating aggression against Australasian or North American
territory must evidently first deal with the Indian Ocean Fleet.

"It is impossible to ignore the strategical and political significance
of the Imperial triangle of India based on South Africa and the
Australasian States, and its influence in the solution of the new
problems of Imperial Defence. The effective naval defence of the
self-governing Provinces is best secured by a Fleet maintained in the
North Indian Ocean; and the reinforcement of the British garrison in
India is best secured by units of the Imperial Army maintained in the
self-governing Provinces. If these two conditions are satisfied, the
problem of the defence of the Mother Country is capable of easy

Hong Kong is of less strategical importance than Singapore. But it is
marked out as the advanced base of British naval power in the North
Pacific. It has one of the most magnificent harbours in the world, with
an area of ten square miles. The granite hills which surround it rise
between 2000 and 3000 feet high. The city of Victoria extends for four
miles at the base of the hills which protect the south side of the
harbour, and contains, with its suburbs, 326,961 inhabitants. It is the
present base of the China squadron, and is fortified and garrisoned.

As already stated, the conditions which some years ago made the mastery
of the Pacific unimportant to India no longer exist, and the safety of
the Indian Empire depends almost as closely on the position in the
Pacific as the safety of England does on the position in the Atlantic.
But, except by making some references in future chapters on strategy and
on trade to her resources and possibilities, I do not propose to attempt
any consideration of India in this volume. That would unduly enlarge its
scope. In these days of quick communication, both power and trade are
very fluid, and there is really not any country of the earth which has
not in some way an influence on the Pacific. But so far as possible I
have sought to deal only with the direct factors.

Having noted the British possessions in the North Pacific, it is
necessary to turn south and study the young "nations of the blood" below
the Equator before estimating British Power in the Pacific.



Those who seek to find in history the evidence of an all-wise purpose
might gather from the fantastic history of Australasia facts to confirm
their faith. Far back in prehistoric ages, this great island was cut
adrift from the rest of the world and left lonely and apart in the
Southern Pacific. A few prehistoric marsupials wandered over its
territory and were hunted by poor nomads of men, without art or
architecture, condemned by the conditions of their life to step aside
from the great onward current of human evolution.

Over this land the winds swept and the rains fell, and, volcanic action
having ceased, the mountains were denuded and their deep stores of
minerals bared until gold lay about on the surface. Coal, copper,
silver, tin, and iron too, were made plentifully accessible. At the same
time enormous agricultural plains were formed in the interior, but under
climatic conditions which allowed no development of vegetable or animal
types without organised culture by a civilised people.

Nature thus seemed to work consciously for the making of a country
uniquely fitted for civilisation by a White Race, whilst at the same
time ensuring that its aboriginal inhabitants should not be able to
profit by its betterment, and thus raise themselves to a degree of
social organisation which would allow them to resist an invading White
Race. In the year when Captain Cook acquired the Continent of Australia
for Great Britain, it was ripe for development by civilised effort in a
way which no other territory of the earth then was; and yet was so
hopelessly sterile to man without machinery and the other apparatus of
human science, that its aboriginal inhabitants were the most forlorn of
the world's peoples, living a starveling life dependent on poor hunting,
scanty fisheries and a few roots for existence.

It needs no great stretch of fancy to see a mysterious design in the
world-history of Australia. Here was a great area of land stuffed with
precious and useful minerals, hidden away from the advancing
civilisation of man as effectually as if it had been in the planet Mars.
In other parts of the globe great civilisations rose and fell--the
Assyrian, the Egyptian, the Chinese, the Greek, the Roman,--all drawing
from the bowels of the earth her hidden treasures, and drawing on her
surface riches with successive harvests. In America, the Mexican,
Peruvian and other civilisations learned to gather from the great stocks
of Nature, and built up fabrics of greatness from her rifled treasures.
In Australia alone, amid dim, mysterious forests, the same prehistoric
animals roamed, the same poor nomads of men lived and died, neither
tilling nor mining the earth--tenants in occupation, content with a bare
and accidental livelihood in the midst of mighty riches.

Australia too was not discovered by the White Man until the moment when
a young nation could be founded on the discovered principles of Justice.
To complete the marvel, as it would seem, Providence ordained that its
occupation and development should be by the one people most eminently
fitted for the founding of a new nation on the virgin soil.

The fostering care of Nature did not end there. The early settlers
coming to Australia not only found that nothing had been drawn from the
soil or reef, that an absolutely virgin country was theirs to exploit,
but also were greeted by a singularly happy climate, free of all the
diseases which afflicted older lands. Prolific Australia, with all its
marvellous potentialities, lay open to them, with no warlike tribes to
enforce a bloody beginning to history, no epidemics to war against, no
savage beasts to encounter. And they were greeted by an energising
climate which seemed to encourage the best faculties of man, just as it
gave to harvests a wonderful richness and to herds a marvellous

How it came to be that such a vast area of the earth's surface, so near
to the great Indian and Chinese civilisations, should have so long
remained unknown, it is difficult to understand. There is faint evidence
that the existence of the great Southern continent was guessed at in
very early days, but no attempt at exploration or settlement was made by
the Hindoos or the Chinese. When the Greeks, who had penetrated to India
under Alexander the Great, returned to their homes, they brought back
some talk of a continent south from India, and the later Greek
literature and some Latin writers have allusions to the tale. Marco Polo
(thirteenth century), during his voyages to the East Indies, seems to
have heard of a Southern continent, for he speaks of a Java Major, a
land much greater than the isle of Java (which he knew), and which was
probably either New Guinea or Australia. On a fifteenth-century map of
the world now in the British Museum there are indications of a knowledge
of the existence of Australia; and it is undoubtedly included in a map
of the world of the sixteenth century.

But there was evidently no curiosity as to the suspected new continent.
Australia to-day contains not the slightest trace of contact with
ancient or Middle Ages civilisation. Exploration was attracted to the
East Indies and to Cathay by the tales of spices, scents, gold, silver,
and ivory. No such tales came from Australia. It was to prove the
greatest gold-producing country of the world, but its natives had no
hunger for the precious metal, though it was strewn about the ground in
great lumps in some places. Nor did sugar, spice, and ivory come from
the land; nor, indeed, any product of man's industry or Nature's
bounty. Wrapped in its mysterious grey-green forests, protected by a
coast-line which appeared always barren and inhospitable, Australia
remained unknown until comparatively modern times.

In 1581 the Spaniards, under Magalhaes, reached the Philippine Islands
by sailing west from the South American coast. In the nature of things
their ships would have touched the coast of Australia. In 1606 De Quiros
and De Torres reached some of the Oceanian islands, and named one _Terra
Austrialia del Espiritu Santo_ (the Southern Land of the Holy Spirit).
As was the case with Columbus in his voyage of discovery to America, De
Quiros had not touched the mainland, but his voyage gave the name
"Australia" to the new continent.

The English were late in the work of exploring the coast of Australia,
though as far back as 1624 there is a record of Sir William Courteen
petitioning King James I. for leave to plant colonies in "Terra
Australis." In 1688, William Dampier, in the _Cygnet_, touched at the
north-western coast of Australia. The next year, in H.M.S. _Roebuck_, he
paid a visit to the new land, and, on returning to England, put on
record his impressions of its fauna and flora. It was in 1770 that
Captain Cook made the first landing at Botany Bay.

The British nation at the time could find no use for Australia. Annexed
in 1770 it was not colonised until 1787, when the idea was adopted of
using the apparently sterile and miserable Southern continent as a
depôt for enforced exiles. It was a happy chance that sent a "racketty"
element of British social life to be the first basis of the new
Australian population. The poachers, English Chartists, Irish Fenians,
Scottish land rebels (who formed the majority of the convicts sent to
Australia) were good as nation-building material.

There was work to do there in the Pacific, there is further work in the
future, which calls for elements of audacity, of contempt for
convention, which are being worked out of the average British type.
There could be no greater contrast between, say, a London suburbanite,
whose life travels along an endless maze of little gravel paths between
fences and trimly-kept hedges, and the Australian of the "back country,"
who any day may ride out solitary on a week's journey into a great
sun-baked wilderness, his life and that of his dog and his two horses
dependent on the accurate finding of a series of water-holes: his joy in
existence coming from the solitude and the desert, the companionship of
his three animals, his tobacco, and the thought of his "mate" somewhere,
whom he would meet after six months' absence with a handshake and a
monosyllable by way of greeting, and yet with the love of a fond

That London suburbanite gives the key to his kindly and softly
sentimental character in his subscription to a society which devotes
itself to seeing that the suburban house cat is not left shut up without
food when a family goes away on holidays. That Australian shows how far
he has reverted to the older human type of relentless purpose when, in
the pursuit of his calling, he puts ten thousand sheep to the chance of
death from thirst. It is not that he is needlessly cruel, but that he is
sternly resolute. The same man would share his last water with his dog
in the desert to give both an equal chance of life. He feels the misery
of beasts but says nothing, and allows it to interfere nothing with his

There is a story of a clergyman coming to a back-country station in
Australia during the agony of a great drought. He asked of the squatter
permission to hold prayers for rain in the woolshed. The squatter turned
on him, fiercely gripping him by the arm.

"Listen!" he cried.

From all around came the hoarse, pitiful lowing and bleating of
thousands of animals dying of thirst and hunger.

"Listen! If the Almighty does not hear _that_, will he hear us?"

That is the type of man, bred from the wilder types of the British race,
who is the backbone of the Australian population, and who will be the
backbone of the resistance which the White Man will make to any overflow
of Asia along the Pacific littoral.

The Australian took instinctively to his task in the work of White
civilisation--that of keeping the Asiatic out of Australia. In the early
days of the goldfields, the Chinese began to crowd to the continent, and
some squatters of those days designed to introduce them as cheap and
reliable shepherds. The mass of the White population protested, with
riot and rebellion in some cases. At one time it seemed as though the
guns of British warships would fire on Australian citizens in
vindication of the right of Chinese to enter Australia. But maternal
affection was stronger than logic. The cause of "White Australia" had
its way; and by poll taxes and other restrictive legislation any great
influx of Asiatics was stopped. At a later date the laws regarding alien
immigration were so strengthened that it is now almost impossible for a
coloured man to enter Australia as a colonist, even though he be a
British subject and a graduate of Oxford University.

Around the ethics of the "White Australia" policy there has raged a
fierce controversy. But it is certain that, without that policy, without
an instinctive revolt on the part of the Australian colonists against
any intrusion of coloured races, Australia would be to-day an Asiatic
colony, still nominally held, perhaps, by a small band of White
suzerains, but ripe to fall at any moment into the hands of its
10,000,000 or 20,000,000 Asiatic inhabitants.

Instead of that, Australia is at once the fortress which the White Race
has thinly garrisoned against an Asiatic advance southward, and the most
tempting prize to inspire the Asiatic to that advance. There is not the
least doubt that, given Australia, Japan could establish a power
threatening the very greatest in Europe. Her fecund people within a
couple of generations would people the coast-line and prepare for the
colonisation of the interior. Rich fields and rich mines put at the
disposal of a frugal and industrious people would yield enormous
material wealth.

An organised China would put the island continent to even greater use.
But there Australia is, held by a tiny White population, which increases
very slowly (for men and women have the ideas of comfort and luxury
which lead to small families), but which is now fairly awake to the fact
that on the bosom of the Pacific and along its shores will be fought the
great race battles of the future.

It is curious for the peoples of Europe, accustomed to associate extreme
democracy and socialistic leanings with ideals of pacificism and
"international brotherhood," to observe the warlike spirit of the
Australian peoples. There are no folk more "advanced" in politics. Their
ideal is frankly stated to be to make a "working man's Paradise" of the
continent. Yet they are entering cheerfully on a great naval
expenditure, and their adoption of a system of universal training for
military service provides the only instance, except that of Switzerland,
where the responsibility of national defence is freely accepted by the
citizen manhood of the nation.

Universal training for military service in Australia, legally enforced
in 1909, was made inevitable in 1903, when in taking over the
administration of the defences the first Commonwealth Government
provided in its Defence Act for the levying of the whole male population
for service in case of war. That provision was evidence of the wholesome
and natural view taken by Australians of the citizen's duty to his
nation. It was also evidence of an ignorance of, or a blindness to, the
conditions of modern campaigning. Raw levies, if equipped with courage
and hardihood, could be of almost immediate usefulness in the warfare of
a century ago. To-day they would be worse than useless, a burden on the
commissariat, no support in the field. The logical Australian mind was
quick to recognise this. Within five years it was established that,
admitting a universal duty to serve, a necessary sequence was universal
training for service.

One argument the Australian advocates of universal service had not to
meet. In that pioneer country the feeling which is responsible for a
kind of benevolent cosmopolitanism, and finds expression in Peace
Societies, had little chance of growth. The direct conflict with Nature
had brought a sense of the reality of life's struggle, of its reality
and of its essential beauty. There is no maundering horror of the
natural facts of existence. Australian veins when scratched bleed red
blood, not a pale ichor of Olympus. The combative instinct is recognised
as a part of human nature, a necessary and valuable part. That
defencelessness is the best means of defence would never occur to the
Australian as being anything but an absurd idea. He recognises the part
which the combative instinct has played, the part it still must play in
civilisation: how in its various phases it has assisted man in his
upward path; how it has still some part to play in the preservation and
further evolution of civilisation.

The original fighting instinct was purely brutal--a rough deadly
scramble for food. But it undoubtedly had its value in securing the
survival of the best types for the propagation of the species. With its
first great refinement, in becoming the fight for mateship, the
combative instinct was still more valuable to evolution. The next step,
when fights came to be for ideas, marked a rapid growth of civilisation.
Exclude chivalry, patriotism, Imperialism, from the motives of the
world, and there would never have been a great civilisation.

A distinguished British statesman spoke the other day of the expenditure
on armaments as possibly a sign of "relapsing into barbarism." He might
more truly have described it as an insurance against barbarism--at once
a sign of the continued existence of the forces which made civilisation,
and a proof that the advanced races are prepared to guard with the sword
what they have won by the sword. The Pacific has seen the tragedy of one
nation which, having won to a suave and graceful civilisation, came to
utter ruin through the elimination of the combative instinct from its
people. The Peruvians had apparently everything to make life happy: but
because they had eliminated the fighting instinct their civilisation was
shattered to fragments in a year by the irruption of a handful of

The Australian feels that safety and independence must be paid for with
strength, and not with abjectness. He does not wish to be another
Peruvian: and he builds up his socialistic Utopia with a sword in one
hand as was built a temple of Jerusalem.

Some doubt having arisen in the Australian mind, after a system of
universal training had been adopted, whether the scheme of training was
sufficient, the greatest organiser of the British Army, Field Marshal
Lord Kitchener, was asked to visit the Commonwealth and report on that
point. His report suggested some slight changes, which were promptly
adopted, but on the whole he approved thoroughly of the proposed scheme,
though it provided periods of training which seem startlingly small to
the European soldier. But Lord Kitchener agreed, as every other
competent observer has agreed, that the Australian is so much of a
natural soldier owing to his pioneering habit of life, that it takes but
little special military discipline to make him an effective fighting

Committed to a military system which will, in a short time, make some
200,000 citizens soldiers available in case of need, Australia's martial
enthusiasm finds expression also in a naval programme which is of great
magnitude for so small a people. In July 1909, an Imperial Conference on
Defence met in London, and the British Admiralty brought down certain
proposals for Imperial naval co-operation. _Inter alia_, the British
Admiralty memorandum stated:--

"In the opinion of the Admiralty, a Dominion Government desirous of
creating a Navy should aim at forming a distinct Fleet unit; and the
smallest unit is one which, while manageable in time of peace, is
capable of being used in its component parts in the time of war.

"Under certain conditions the establishment of local defence flotillas,
consisting of torpedo craft and submarines, might be of assistance in
time of war to the operations of the Fleet, but such flotillas cannot
co-operate on the high seas in the wider duties of protection of trade
and preventing attacks from hostile cruisers and squadrons. The
operations of Destroyers and torpedo-boats are necessarily limited to
the waters near the coast or to a radius of action not far distant from
a base, while there are great difficulties in manning such a force and
keeping it always thoroughly efficient.

"A scheme limited to torpedo craft would not in itself, moreover, be a
good means of gradually developing a self-contained Fleet capable of
both offence and defence. Unless a naval force--whatever its
size--complies with this condition, it can never take its proper place
in the organisation of an Imperial Navy distributed strategically over
the whole area of British interests.

"The Fleet unit to be aimed at should, therefore, in the opinion of the
Admiralty, consist at least of the following: one armoured cruiser (new
_Indomitable_ class, which is of the _Dreadnought_ type), three
unarmoured cruisers (_Bristol_ class), six destroyers, three submarines,
with the necessary auxiliaries such as depôt and store ships, etc.,
which are not here specified.

"Such a Fleet unit would be capable of action not only in the defence of
coasts, but also of the trade routes, and would be sufficiently powerful
to deal with small hostile squadrons, should such ever attempt to act in
its waters.

"Simply to man such a squadron, omitting auxiliary requirements and any
margin for reliefs, sickness, etc., the minimum numbers required would
be about 2300 officers and men, according to the Admiralty scheme of

"The estimated first cost of building and arming such a complete Fleet
unit would be approximately £3,700,000, and the cost of maintenance,
including upkeep of vessels, pay, and interest and sinking fund, at
British rates, approximately £600,000 per annum.

"The estimated cost of the officers and men required to man the ships
does not comprise the whole cost. There would be other charges to be
provided for, such as the pay of persons employed in subsidiary
services, those undergoing training, sick, in reserve, etc.

"As the armoured cruiser is the essential part of the Fleet unit, it is
important that an _Indomitable_ of the _Dreadnought_ type should be the
first vessel to be built in commencing the formation of a Fleet unit.
She should be officered and manned, as far as possible, by Colonial
officers and men, supplemented by the loan of Imperial officers and men
who might volunteer for the service. While on the station the ship would
be under the exclusive control of the Dominion Government as regards her
movements and general administration, but officers and men would be
governed by regulations similar to the King's Regulations, and be under
naval discipline. The question of pay and allowances would have to be
settled on lines the most suitable to each Dominion Government
concerned. The other vessels, when built, would be treated in the same

"It is recognised that, to carry out completely such a scheme as that
indicated, would ultimately mean a greater charge for naval defence than
that which the Dominions have hitherto borne; but, on the other hand,
the building of a _Dreadnought_ (or its equivalent), which certain
Governments have offered to undertake, would form part of the scheme,
and therefore, as regards the most expensive item of the shipbuilding
programme suggested, no additional cost to those Governments would be

"_Pari passu_ with the creation of the Fleet unit, it would be necessary
to consider the development of local resources in everything which
relates to the maintenance of a Fleet. A careful inquiry should be made
into the shipbuilding and repairing establishments, with a view to their
general adaptation to the needs of the local squadron. Training schools
for officers and men would have to be established; arrangements would
have to be made for the manufacture, supply, and replenishment of the
various naval, ordnance, and victualling stores required by the

"All these requirements might be met according to the views of the
Dominion Governments, in so far as the form and manner of the provision
made are concerned. But as regards shipbuilding, armaments, and warlike
stores, etc., on the one hand, and training and discipline in peace and
war, on the other, there should be one common standard. If the Fleet
unit maintained by a Dominion is to be treated as an integral part of
the Imperial forces, with a wide range of interchangeability among its
component parts with those forces, its general efficiency should be the
same, and the facilities for refitting and replenishing His Majesty's
ships, whether belonging to a Dominion Fleet or to the Fleet of the
United Kingdom, should be the same. Further, as it is a _sine quâ non_
that successful action in time of war depends upon unity of command and
direction, the general discipline must be the same throughout the whole
Imperial service, and without this it would not be possible to arrange
for that mutual co-operation and assistance which would be
indispensable in the building up and establishing of a local naval force
in close connection with the Royal Navy. It has been recognised by the
Colonial Governments that, in time of war, the local naval forces should
come under the general directions of the Admiralty."

The Commonwealth of Australia representatives accepted in full the
proposals as set forth in the Admiralty memorandum. It was agreed that
the Australian Fleet unit thus constituted should form part of the
Eastern Fleet of the Empire, to be composed of similar units of the
Royal Navy, to be known as the China and the East Indies units
respectively, and the Australian unit.

The initial cost was estimated to be approximately:

 1 armoured cruiser (new _Indomitable_ class).        £2,000,000
 3 unarmoured cruisers (_Bristols_) at £350,000.       1,050,000
 6 destroyers (_River_ class) at £80,000                 480,000
 3 submarines (_C_ class) at £55,000                     165,000
                                              Total   £3,695,000

The annual expenditure in connection with the maintenance of the Fleet
unit, pay of personnel, and interest on first cost and sinking fund, was
estimated to be about £600,000, to which amount a further additional sum
would have to be added in view of the higher rates of pay in Australia
and the cost of training and subsidiary establishments, making an
estimated total of £750,000 a year.

The Imperial Government, until such time as the Commonwealth could take
over the whole cost, offered to assist the Commonwealth Government by an
annual contribution of £250,000 towards the maintenance of the complete
Fleet unit; but the offer was refused, and the Australian taxpayer took
on the whole burden at once.

Still not content, the Australian Government arranged for a British
Admiral of standing to visit the Commonwealth and report on its naval
needs. His report suggested the quick construction of a Fleet and of
docks, etc., involving an expenditure, within a very short time, of
£28,000,000. There was no grumbling at this from the Labour Party
Government then in power. "We have called in a doctor. We must take his
prescription," said one of the Australian Cabinet philosophically.

The Australian, so aggressive in his patriotism, so determined in his
warlike preparations, so fitted by heredity and environment for martial
exploits, is to-day the greatest factor in the Southern Pacific. His
aggressiveness, which is almost truculence, is a guarantee that the
British Empire will never be allowed to withdraw from a sphere into
which it entered reluctantly. It will be necessary to point out in a
future chapter how the failure, so far, of the Australian colonists to
people their continent adequately constitutes one of the grave dangers
to the British Power in the Pacific. That failure has been the prompting
for much criticism. It has led to some extraordinary proposals being
put forward in Great Britain, one of the latest being that half of
Australia should be made over to Germany as a peace offering! But, apart
from all failures and neglect of the past (which may be remedied for the
future: indeed are now in process of remedy), Australia is probably
potentially the greatest asset of the British race. Her capacity as a
varied food producer in particular gives her value. There is much talk
in the world to-day of "places in the sun." Claims founded on national
pride are put forward for the right to expand. Very soon there must be a
far more weighty and dangerous clamour for "places at table," for the
right to share in the food lands of the Earth. Populations begin to
press against their boundaries. Modern science has helped the race of
man to reach numbers once considered impossible. Machinery, preventive
medicine, surgery, sanitation, all have helped to raise vastly his
numbers. The feeding of these increasing numbers becomes with each year
a more difficult problem. Territories do not stretch with populations.
Even the comparatively new nation of the United States finds her food
supply and raw material supply tightening, and has just been checked in
an attempt to obtain a lien on the natural resources of the British
Dominion of Canada. Now, excluding manufactures, the 4½ million people
of Australia produce wealth from farm and field and mine to the total of
£134,500,000 a year. Those 4½ millions could be raised to 40 millions
without much lessening of the average rate of production (only mining
and forestry would be affected).

The food production possibilities of Australia make her of enormous
future importance. They make her, too, the object of the bitterest envy
on the part of the overcrowded, hungry peoples of the Asiatic littoral.
The Continent must be held by the British race. It would appear to be
almost as certain that it must be attacked one day by an Asiatic race.



A thousand miles east of Australia is another aggressive young democracy
preparing to arm to the teeth for the conflict of the Pacific, and eager
to embark upon a policy of forward Imperialism on its own account: with
aspirations, indeed, to be made overlord of all the Pacific islands
under the British Flag.

New Zealand had a softer beginning than Australia, and did not win,
therefore, the advantages and disadvantages springing from the wild type
of colonists who gave to the Australian Commonwealth a sturdy
foundation. Nor has New Zealand the "Bush" conditions which make the
back-country Australian quite a distinct type of white man. On those hot
plains of Australia, cruel to a first knowledge, very rich in profit and
welcome to the man who learns their secrets, most potent of attraction
with familiarity and mastery, Nature exacts from man a resolute wooing
before she grants a smile of favour. But, once conquered, she responds
with most generous lavishness. In return, however, she sets her stamp
on the men who come to her favour, and they show that stamp on their
faces. Thin, wiry, with deep-set peering eyes, they suggest sun-dried
men. But whilst leaching out the fat and softness from them, Nature has
compensated the "Bush" Australians with an enduring vitality. No other
men, probably, of the world's peoples could stand such strain of work,
of hunger, of thirst. No men have finer nerves, greater courage. They
must dice with Death for their lives, time and again staking all on
their endurance, and on the chance of the next water-hole being still
unparched. This gives them a contempt of danger, and some contempt of
life, which shows in a cruel touch in their character.

Imagine a white man who, keeping all his education and maintaining his
sympathy with modern science and modern thought, withal reverts in some
characteristics to the type of the Bedouin of the desert, and you have
the typical Australian Bushman. He is fierce in his friendships, stern
in his enmities, passionately fond of his horse, so contemptuous of
dwellings that he will often refuse to sleep in them, Arabian in his
hospitality, fatalistic in his philosophy. He has been known to inflict
torture on a native whom he suspects of concealing the whereabouts of a
water-hole, and yet will almost kill himself to get help for a mate in
need. He is so independent that he hates working for a "boss," and will
rarely take work on wages, preferring to live as his own master, by
hunting or fossicking, or by undertaking contract work for forest

There is material for a great warrior nation in these Bushmen, with
their capacity for living anyhow, their deadliness as shots, their
perfect command of the horse, their Stoic cruelty which would enable
them to face any hardship without flinching, and to inflict any revenge
without remorse.

New Zealand has not the "Bushman" type. But as some compensation, the
early New Zealand settlers had the advantage of meeting at the very
outset an effective savage. The Australian learned all his hardihood
from Nature; the New Zealand colonist had the Maori to teach him, not
only self-reliance but community reliance. Whilst Nature was very kind
to him, sparing the infliction of the drought, giving always a
reasonable surety of food, he was obliged to walk warily in fear of the
powerful and warlike Maori tribes. The phenomenon, so frequent in
Australia, of a squatter leading his family, his flocks, and his herds
out into the wilderness and fighting out there, alone, a battle with
Nature was rare in New Zealand. There the White settlers were forced
into groups by the fear of and respect for the Maoris. From the first
they knew the value of a fortified post. Until a very late period of
their history they saw frequently the uniforms of troops from Great
Britain helping them to garrison the towns against the natives.

As was the case with Australia, the British Empire was very reluctant to
assume control of New Zealand. Captain Cook, who annexed Australia in
1770, had visited New Zealand in 1769, but had not acquired it formally
for the British Crown. The same explorer returned to New Zealand several
years after. But from the date of his last departure, 1776, three
decades passed before any White settlement was attempted. In 1788 the
colonisation of Australia was begun, but it was not until 1814 that a
small body of Europeans left Sydney and settled in New Zealand. The Rev.
Samuel Marsden, who had been Chaplain to the Convict Colony of New South
Wales, was the leader of the band, and its mission was to Christianise
the natives. A little later the Wesleyan Church founded a Mission in the
same neighbourhood. In 1825 a Company was formed in London to colonise
New Zealand, and it sent away a band of pioneers in the ship _Rosanna_.
The wild mien of the natives so thoroughly frightened these colonists
that almost all of them returned to England. Desultory efforts at
settlement followed, small bands of British subjects forming tiny
stations at various points of the New Zealand coast, and getting on as
well as they might with the natives, for they had no direct protection
from the British Government, which was entirely opposed to any idea of
annexing the group. There was no fever for expansion in England at the
time. The United States had broken away. Canada seemed to be on the
point of secession. The new settlement in Australia promised little. But
the hand of the British Government was destined to be forced in the
matter, and, willy-nilly, Britain had to take over a country which is
now one of her most valued possessions.

Mr Edward Gibbon Wakefield was responsible for forcing on the British
Government the acquisition of New Zealand. The era was one of
philanthropy and keen thought for social reform in Great Britain. The
doctrines of the French Revolution still reverberated through Europe,
and the rights of humanity were everywhere preached to men confronted
with the existence of great social misery, which seemed to deny to the
majority of mankind even the degree of comfort enjoyed by animals.
Wakefield's remedy was the emigration of the surplus population of the
British islands--well, the British islands except Ireland, to which
country and its inhabitants Wakefield had an invincible antipathy. The
prospectus of the Company to colonise New Zealand stated:

"The aim of this Company is not confined to mere emigration, but is
directed to colonisation in its ancient and systematic form. Its object
is to transplant English society with its various graduations in due
proportions, carrying out our laws, customs, associations, habits,
manners, feelings--everything of England, in short, but the soil. We
desire so now to cast the foundations of the colony that in a few
generations New Zealand shall offer to the world a counterpart of our
country in all the most cherished peculiarities of our own social system
and national character, as well as in wealth and power."

In due time twelve ships carrying 1125 people sailed for New Zealand.
That was the beginning of a steady flow of emigrants mostly recruited by
various Churches, and settled in groups in different parts of the New
Zealand islands--members of the Free Church of Scotland at Otago, of the
Church of England at Canterbury, men of Devon and Cornwall men at New

The British Government could hardly shake off all responsibility for
these exiles. But it did its best to avoid annexation, and even adopted
the remarkable expedient of recognising the Maoris as a nation, and
encouraging them to choose a national standard. The Maori Flag was
actually flown on the high seas for a while, and at least on one
occasion received a salute from a British warship. But no standard could
give a settled polity to a group of savage tribes. The experiment of
setting up "The Independent Tribes of New Zealand" as a nation failed.
In 1840, Great Britain formally took over the New Zealand islands from
the natives under the treaty of Waitangi, which is said to be the only
treaty on record between a white race and a coloured race which has been
faithfully kept to this day.

"This famous instrument," writes a New Zealand critic, "by which the
Maoris, at a time when they were apparently unconquerable, voluntarily
ceded sovereign rights over their country to Queen Victoria, is
practically the only compact between a civilised and an uncivilised race
which has been regarded and honoured through generations of
difficulties, distrust, and even warfare. By guaranteeing to the Maori
the absolute ownership of their patrimonial lands and the enjoyment of
their ancestral rights and customs, it enabled them to take their place
as fully enfranchised citizens of the British Empire, and to present the
solitary example of a dark race surviving contact with a white, and
associating with it on terms of mutual regard, equality and unquestioned
loyalty. The measure of this relationship is evident from the fact that
Maori interests are represented by educated natives in both houses of
the New Zealand Parliament and in the Ministry. The strict observance of
the Treaty of Waitangi is part and parcel of the national faith of the
New Zealanders, and a glorious monument to the high qualities of one of
the finest races of aboriginal peoples the world has ever seen."

The New Zealand colonists, having won the blessing of the British Flag,
were not well content. Very shortly afterwards we find Mr James Edward
FitzGerald writing to Wakefield, who was contemplating a trip to New

"After all, this place is but a village. Its politics are not large
enough for you. But there are politics on this side the world which
would be so. It seems unquestionable that in the course of a very few
years--sometimes I think months--the Australian colonies will declare
their independence. We shall live to see an Australasian Empire
rivalling the United States in greatness, wealth and power. There is a
field for great statesmen. Only yesterday I was saying, talking about
you, that if you come across the world it must be to Australia; just in
time to draw up the Declaration of Independence."

But that phase passed. New Zealand to-day emulates Australia in a
fervent Imperial patriotism, and at the 1911 Imperial Conference her
Prime Minister, Sir Joseph Ward, was responsible for the following
proposal which was too forward in its Imperialism to be immediately
acceptable to his fellow delegates:

"That the Empire has now reached a stage of Imperial development which
renders it expedient that there should be an Imperial Council of State,
with representatives from all the self-governing parts of the Empire, in
theory and in fact advisory to the Imperial Government on all questions
affecting the interests of his Majesty's Dominions oversea."

He urged the resolution on the following grounds:

(1) Imperial unity; (2) organised Imperial defence; (3) the equal
distribution of the burden of defence throughout the Empire; (4) the
representation of self-governing oversea Dominions in an Imperial
Parliament of defence for the purpose of determining peace or war, the
contributions to Imperial defence, foreign policy as far as it affects
the Empire, international treaties so far as they affect the Empire, and
such other Imperial matters as might by agreement be transferred to such

In advocating his resolution Sir Joseph Ward made an interesting
forecast of the future of the British nations whose shores were washed
by the Pacific. He estimated that if the present rate of increase were
maintained, Canada would have in twenty-five years from now between
30,000,000 and 40,000,000 inhabitants. In Australia, South Africa, and
New Zealand the proportionate increase could not be expected to be so
great, but he believed that in twenty-five years' time the combined
population of those oversea Dominions would be much greater than that of
the United Kingdom. Those who controlled the destinies of the British
Empire would have to consider before many years had passed the expansion
of these oversea countries into powerful nations, all preserving their
own local autonomy, all being governed to suit the requirements of the
people within their own territory, but all deeply concerned in keeping
together in some loose form of federation to serve the general interests
of all parts of the Empire.

At a later stage, in reply to Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Prime Minister of
Canada, Sir Joseph Ward indulged in an even more optimistic prophecy.
The United States, he said, had something like 100,000,000 people. The
prospective possibility of Canada for settlement purposes was not less
than that of the United States, and the Dominion was capable of holding
a population of 100,000,000 in the future. Australia also was capable of
holding a similar number, although it would necessarily be a great
number of years before that position was reached. South Africa, too,
could hold 100,000,000 people. It was no exaggeration to suggest that
those three Dominions were capable of holding 300,000,000 of people with
great comfort as compared with certain overcrowded countries. New
Zealand, in the opinion of many well-qualified men, could carry upwards
of 40,000,000 people with comparative ease and comfort.

But these figures are hardly scientific. Climatic and other
considerations will prevent Canada from reaching quite the same degree
of greatness as the United States. British South Africa could "hold"
100,000,000 people, but it could not support them on present
appearances. The possibilities of Australian settlement are difficult to
be exaggerated in view of the steady dwindling of the "desert" area in
the light of recent research and exploration, and of the fact that all
her area is blessed with a genial climate. New Zealand, to keep
40,000,000 people, would need, however, to have a density of 400 people
per square mile, a density surpassed to-day in Belgium and Holland but
not reached by Great Britain. A fairly conservative estimate of the
possibilities of the British Empire would allow it for the future a
white population of 200,000,000, of whom at least half would be grouped
near the shores of the Pacific. Presuming a British Imperial Federation
on Sir Joseph Ward's lines with such a population, and the mastery of
the Pacific would be settled. But that is for the future, the far

Sir Joseph Ward, in the event, was not able to carry the Imperial
Conference with him, the majority of the delegates considering that the
time had not yet come for the organisation of an Imperial Federal
system. But it is possible that with the passing of time and the growth
of the population of the Dominions overseas, some such system may
evolve: and a British Empire Parliament may sit one day at Westminster,
at Vancouver or at Sydney. Certainly the likelihood is that the
numerical balance of the British race will shift one day from the
Atlantic to the Pacific.

Following Australia's example, New Zealand has adopted a system of
universal training for military service, but there are indications that
she will not enforce it quite so rigorously as her neighbour. In the
matter of naval defence, at the Conference of 1909 the New Zealand
attitude was thus defined by her Prime Minister:--

"I favour one great Imperial Navy with all the Overseas Dominions
contributing, either in ships or money, and with naval stations at the
self-governing Dominions supplied with ships by and under the control of
the Admiralty. I, however, realise the difficulties, and recognise that
Australia and Canada in this important matter are doing that which their
respective Governments consider to be best; but the fact remains that
the alterations that will be brought about upon the establishment of an
Australian unit will alter the present position with New Zealand.

"New Zealand's maritime interests in her own waters, and her dependent
islands in the Pacific would, under the altered arrangements, be almost
entirely represented by the Australian Fleet unit, and not, as at
present, by the Imperial Fleet. This important fact, I consider,
necessitates some suitable provision being made for New Zealand, which
country has the most friendly feeling in every respect for Australia and
her people, and I am anxious that in the initiation of new arrangements
with the Imperial Government under the altered conditions, the interests
of New Zealand should not be over-looked. I consider it my duty to point
this out, and to have the direct connection between New Zealand and the
Royal Navy maintained in some concrete form.

"New Zealand will supply a _Dreadnought_ for the British Navy as already
offered, the ship to be under the control of and stationed wherever the
Admiralty considers advisable.

"I fully realise that the creation of specific units, one in the East,
one in Australia, and, if possible, one in Canada, would be a great
improvement upon the existing condition of affairs, and the fact that
the New Zealand _Dreadnought_ was to be the flag-ship of the
China-Pacific unit is, in my opinion, satisfactory. I, however, consider
it is desirable that a portion of the China-Pacific unit should remain
in New Zealand waters, and I would suggest that two of the new "Bristol"
cruisers, together with three destroyers and two submarines, should be
detached from the China station in time of peace and stationed in New
Zealand waters; that these vessels should come under the flag of the
Admiral of the China unit; that the flagship should make periodical
visits to New Zealand waters; and that there should be an interchange in
the service of the cruisers between New Zealand and China, under
conditions to be laid down.

"The ships should be manned, as far as possible, by New Zealand officers
and men, and, in order that New Zealanders might be attracted to serve
in the Fleet, local rates should be paid to those New Zealanders who
enter, in the same manner as under the present Australian and New
Zealand agreement, such local rates being treated as deferred pay.

"The determination of the agreement with Australia has, of necessity,
brought up the position of New Zealand under that joint agreement. I
therefore suggest that on completion of the China unit, the present
agreement with New Zealand should cease, that its contribution of
£100,000 per annum should continue and be used to pay the difference in
the rates of pay to New Zealanders above what would be paid under the
ordinary British rate. If the contribution for the advanced rate of pay
did not amount to £100,000 per annum, any balance to be at the disposal
of the Admiralty.

"The whole of this Fleet unit to be taken in hand and completed before
the end of 1912, and I should be glad if the squadron as a whole would
then visit New Zealand on the way to China, leaving the New Zealand
detachment there under its senior officer."

From the difference between the naval arrangements of Australia and New
Zealand can be gathered some hints of the difference between the
national characteristics of the two young nations. Australia is
aggressively independent in all her arrangements: loyal to the British
Empire and determined to help its aims in every way, but to help after
her own fashion and with armies and navies recruited and trained by
herself. New Zealand, with an equal Imperial zeal, has not the same
national self-consciousness and is willing to allow her share of naval
defence to take the form of a cash payment. Probably the most effective
naval policy of New Zealand would be founded on a close partnership with
Australia, the two nations combining to maintain one Fleet. But that New
Zealand does not seem to desire. She is, however, content to be a
partner with Australia in one detail of military administration. The
military college for the training of officers at the Australian Federal
capital is shared with New Zealand. The present Prime Minister of
Australia, Mr Fisher, is taking steps towards securing a closer defence
bond with New Zealand.[4]

In an aspiration towards forward Imperialism, New Zealand is fully at
one with Australia. But she has the idea that the control of the
Southern Pacific, outside of the continent of Australia, is the right of
New Zealand, and dreams of a New Zealand Empire embracing the island
groups of Polynesia. It will be one of the problems of the future for
the British Power to restrain the exuberant racial pride of these South
Pacific nations, who see nothing in the European situation which should
interfere with a full British control of the South Pacific.

In addition to Australia and New Zealand, the British Empire has a
number of minor possessions in the South Pacific. In regard to almost
all of them, the same tale of reluctant acceptance has to be told. New
Guinea was annexed by the Colony of Queensland, anxious to set on foot a
foreign policy of her own, in 1883. The British Government repudiated
the annexation, and in the following year reluctantly consented to take
over for the Empire a third of the great island on condition that the
Australian States agreed to guarantee the cost of the administration of
the new possession. The Fiji Group was offered to Great Britain by King
Thakombau in 1859, and was refused. Some English settlers then began to
administer the group on a system of constitutional government under
Thakombau. It was not until 1874 that the British Government accepted
these rich islands, and then somewhat ungraciously and reluctantly,
influenced to the decision by the fact that the alternative was German

It was no affectation of coyness on the part of the successive British
Governments which dictated a refusal when South Pacific annexations were
mooted. Time after time it was made clear that the Home Country wanted
no responsibilities there. Yet to-day, as the result mainly of the
impulse of Empire and adventure in individual British men, the British
Flag flies over the whole continent of Australia, Tasmania, New Zealand,
a part of New Guinea, Fiji, and the Ellice, Gilbert, Kermadec, Friendly,
Chatham, Cook, and many other groups. It is a strange instance of
greatness thrust upon a people.


[4] Since writing, in March 1912, there has been an attempt on the part
of the Australian Prime Minister to come to some closer naval
arrangement with New Zealand; and the attempt seems to promise to be



The native races of the South Pacific, with the possible exception of
the Maori, will have no influence in settling the destiny of the ocean.
Neither the Australian aboriginal nor the Kanaka--under which last
general title may be grouped all the tribes of Papua, the Solomons, the
New Hebrides and other Oceanic islands--will provide the foundation of a
nation. It is one of the curiosities of world-history that no great race
has ever survived which had its origin in a land south of the Equator.
From the earliest civilisations to the latest, there is not a single
instance of a people of the southern hemisphere exercising any notable
effect on the world's destinies. Sometimes there seems no adequate
reason for this. That Africa north of the Equator should have produced a
great civilisation, which was the early guide and instructor of the
European civilisations, may be explained in part by the curious
phenomenon of the Nile delta, a tract of land the irrigation of which at
regular intervals by mysterious natural forces prompted inquiry, and
suggested that all the asperities of Nature could be softened by effort.
(The spirit of inquiry and the desire for artificial comfort are the
great promptings to civilisation.) But it is difficult to understand why
in America the aboriginal Mexicans should have been so much more warlike
than the Peruvians or any other people in South America; and why the
West Pacific should wash with its northern waters the lands of two great
races, and with its southern waters flow past lands which, though of
greater fertility, remained almost empty, or else were peopled by
childlike races, careless of progress and keen only to enjoy the simple
happiness offered by Nature's bounty.

The Australian aboriginal race is rapidly dwindling: one of its
branches, that which populated the fertile and temperate island of
Tasmania, is already extinct. In Tasmania, reacting to the influence of
a mild and yet stimulating climate, a climate comparable with that of
Devon in England, but more sunny, the Australasian native had won to his
highest point of development. Apparently, too, he had won to his highest
possible point, for there is evidence that for many generations no
progress at all had been made towards civilisation. Yet that point was
so low in the stage of evolution that it was impossible for the poor
natives to take any part, either as a separate race, or by mingling
their blood with another race, in the future of the Pacific. The black
Australian is a primitive rather than a degraded man. Most ethnologists
have concluded that this black Australian is a Caucasian. Wallace
ascribes to him kinship with the Veddas and the Ainus of Asia. Stratz
takes the Australian as the prototype of all the races of man.
Schoetensack contends that the human race had its origin in the
Australian continent.

But, however dignified by ancestry, the Australian aboriginal was
pathetically out of touch with modern civilisation. He broke down
utterly at its advent, not so much because of his bad qualities as
because of his childishness. Not only were alcohol, opium and greed
strange to him, but also weapons of steel and horses and clothing. He
had never learnt to dig, to build, to weave. War organisation had not
been thought of, and his tribal fights were prodigal of noise but
sparing of slaughter. When the White Man came, it was inevitable that
this simple primitive should dwindle from the face of the earth. It is
not possible to hold out any hope for the future of the Australian
blacks. They can never emulate the Maoris of New Zealand, who will take
a small share in the building up of a nation. All that may be hoped for
is that their certain end will be kept back as long as is humanly
possible, and that their declining days will be softened by all
kindness. A great reserve in the Northern Territory--a reserve from
which the White population would be jealously excluded, and almost as
jealously the White fashions of clothing and house-building--holds out
the best hope for their future. It is comforting to think that the
Australian Government is now resolved to do all in its power for the
aboriginals. Indeed, to be just, authority has rarely lacked in
kindness of intention; it has been the cruelty of individuals acting in
defiance of authority, but aided by the supineness of authority, that
has been responsible for most of the cruelty.

The Maori or native New Zealander was of a different type. The Maori was
an immigrant to New Zealand. Some time back there was an overflow of
population from the fertile sub-tropical islands of Malaysia. A tribe
which had already learned some of the arts of life, which was of a proud
and warlike character, took to the sea, as the Norsemen did in Europe,
and sought fresh lands for colonisation. Not one wave, but several, of
this outflow of colonists struck New Zealand. The primitive people
there, the Morioris, could offer but little resistance to the warlike
Malaysians, and speedily were vanquished, a few remnants finding refuge
in the outlying islets of the New Zealand group. Probably much the same
type of emigrant occupied Hawaii at one time, for the Hawaiian and the
Maori have much in common. But whilst the perpetual summer of Hawaii
softened and enervated its colonists, the bracing and vigorous climate
of New Zealand had a precisely opposite effect. The dark race of the
Pacific reached there a very high state of development.

The Maori system of government was tribal, and there does not seem to
have been, up to the time of the coming of the White Man, any attempt on
the part of one chief to seize supreme power and become king. Land was
held on a communal system, and cultivated fairly well. Art existed, and
was applied to boat-building, to architecture, to the embroidering of
fabrics, to the carving of stone and wood. War was the great pastime,
and cannibalism was customary. Probably this practice was brought by the
Maoris from their old home. If it had not been, it might well have
sprung up under the strange conditions of life in the new country, for
New Zealand naturally possessed not a single mammal, not a beast whose
flesh might be eaten. There were birds and lizards, and that was all.
The Maoris brought with them dogs, which were bred for eating, but were
too few in number to provide a satisfactory food-supply; and rats, which
were also eaten. With these exceptions there was no flesh food, and the
invitation to cannibalism was clear.

A more pleasant feature of the national life of the Maori was a high
degree of chivalry. In war and in love he seems to have had very much
the same ideas of conduct as the European of the Age of Chivalry. He
liked the combat for the combat's own sake, and it is recorded as one of
the incidents of the Maori War that when a besieged British force ran
short of ammunition, the Maori enemy halved with them their supply, "so
as to have a fair fight."

In his love affairs the Maori was romantic and poetic. His legends and
his native poetry suggest a state of society in which there was a high
respect for women, who had to be wooed and won, and were not the mere
chattels of the men-warriors. Since this respect for womenkind is a
great force for civilisation, there is but little doubt that, if the
Maoris had been left undisturbed for a few more centuries, they would
have evolved a state of civilisation comparable with that of the
Japanese or the Mexicans.

When Captain Cook visited New Zealand in 1769 the Maori race probably
numbered some 100,000. The results of coming into contact with
civilisation quickly reduced that number to about 50,000. But there was
then a stay in the process of extinction. The Maori began to learn the
virtues as well as the vices of civilisation. "Pakeha" medicine and
sanitation were adopted, and the Maori birth-rate began to creep up, the
Maori death-rate to decrease. It is not probable that the Maori race
will ever come to such numbers as to be a factor of importance in the
Pacific. But it will have some indirect influence. Having established
the right to grow up side by side with the White colonists, possessing
full political and social rights, the Maoris will probably modify
somewhat the New Zealand national type. We shall see in New Zealand,
within a reasonable time, a population of at least 10,000,000 of people,
of whom perhaps 1,000,000 will be Maoris. The effect of this mixture of
the British colonising type with a type somewhat akin to the Japanese
will be interesting to watch. In all probability New Zealand will
shelter a highly aggressive and a fiercely patriotic nation in the
future (as indeed she does at present).

The Malay States bred a vigorous and courageous race of seamen, and
Malay blood has been dispersed over many parts of the Pacific, Malays
probably providing the chief parent stock both for the Hawaiians and the
Maoris. But the Malay Power has been broken up to such an extent that a
Malay nation is now impossible. Since the British overlordship of the
Malay Peninsula, the Chinese have been allowed free access to the land
and free trading rights; and they have ousted the original inhabitants
to a large extent.

The Maori excepted, no race of Polynesia or Melanesia will survive to
affect the destinies of the Pacific Ocean. Nature was cruelly kind to
the Kanaka peoples in the past, and they must pay for their happiness
now. In the South Pacific islands, until White civilisation intruded,
the curse of Adam, which is that with the sweat of the brow bread must
be won, had not fallen. Nature provided a Garden of Eden where rich food
came without digging and raiment was not needed. Laughing nations of
happy children grew up. True, wars they had, and war brought woe. But
the great trouble, and also the great incentive to progress of life,
they had not. There was no toiling for leave to live. Civilisation,
alas! intrudes now, more urgent each year, to bring its "blessings" of
toil, disease, and drabness of fettered life; and the Paradise of the
South Sea yields to its advance--here with the sullen and passionate
resentment of the angry child, there with the pathetic listlessness of
the child too afraid to be angry. But, still, there survives in tree and
flower, bird and beast, and in aboriginal man, much that has the
suggestion rather of the Garden of Eden than of this curious world which
man has made for himself--a world of exacting tasks and harsh
taskmasters, of ugly houses and smoke-stained skies, of machinery and of
enslaving conventions.

With the White Man came sugar plantations and cotton fields. The Kanaka
heard the words "work" and "wages." He laughed brightly, and went on
chasing the butterfly happiness. To work a little while, for the fun of
the thing, he was willing enough. Indeed, any new sort of task had a
fascination for his childish nature. But steady toil he abhorred, and
for wages he had no use.

Some three years ago I watched for an hour or two, from the veranda of a
house at Suva, a Fijian garden-boy at work. This was a "good"
garden-boy, noted in the town for his industry. And he played with his
work with an elegant naïveté that was altogether charming to one who had
not to be his paymaster. Almost bare of clothing, his fine bronzed
muscles rippled and glanced to show that he had the strength for any
task if he had but the will. Perhaps the gentleness of his energy was
inspired by the æsthetic idea of just keeping his bronze skin a little
moist, so as to bring out to the full its satin grace without blurring
the fine anatomical lines with drops of visible sweat. His languid grace
deserved that it should have had some such prompting. If a bird
alighted on a tree, the Fijian quickly dropped his hoe and pursued it
with stones, which--his bright smile said--were not maliciously meant,
but had a purpose of greeting. An insect, a passing wayfarer, the fall
of a leaf, a cloud in the sky, all provided equally good reasons for
stopping work. Finally, at three a little shower came, and the "model
boy" of Fijian industry thankfully ceased work for the day.

A gracious, sweet, well-fed idleness was Nature's dower to the Pacific
Islander, until the White Man came with his work, as an angel with a
flaming sword, and Paradise ended. Now the fruit of that idleness is
that the Kanaka can take no part in the bustling life of modern

In one British settlement, Papua, a part of New Guinea, the Australian
Government is endeavouring to lead a Kanaka race along the path of
modern progress. "Papua for the Papuans," is the keynote of the
administration, and all kinds of devices are adopted to tempt the
coloured man to industry. His Excellency, Colonel Murray, the
Administrator of Papua, told me in London (where he was on leave) last
year (1911) that he had some hopes that the cupidity of the Papuans
would in time tempt them to some settled industry. They had a great
liking for the White Man's adornments and tools, and, to gratify that
liking, were showing some inclination for work. The effort is well
meant, but probably vain. "Civilisation is impossible where the banana
grows," declared an American philosopher: and the generalisation was
sound. The banana tree provides food without tillage: and an organic law
of this civilisation of ours is that man must be driven, by hunger and
thirst and the desire for shelter, to plan, to organise, to make
machines, to store.

Every nation in the Pacific has the same experience. In the Hawaiian
Group, the American Power finds the native race helpless material for
nation-making. The Hawaiian takes on a veneer of civilisation, but
nothing can shake him from his habits of indolence. He adopts American
clothes, lives in American houses, learns to eat pie and to enjoy
ice-cream soda. He plays at the game of politics with voluble zeal. But
he is still a Kanaka, and takes no real part in the progress of the
flourishing territory of Hawaii. Americans do the work of
administration. Imported Japanese, Chinese, Portuguese and others, are
the coolies and the traders. The Hawaiian talks, basks in the sun,
adorns himself with wreaths of odorous flowers, and occasionally
declaims with the pathetic bleat of an enraged sheep at "American

When White civilisation came to the South Pacific, the various islands
held several millions of coloured peoples, very many of them enjoying an
idyllically happy system of existence. To-day, 50,000 Maoris, beginning
to hold their own in the islands of New Zealand, represent the sole hope
of all those peoples to have any voice at all in the Pacific.
Humanitarian effort may secure the survival for a time of other groups
of islanders, but the ultimate prospects are not bright. Probably what
is happening at Fiji, where the Fijian fades away in the face of a more
strenuous coolie type imported from India, and at Hawaii, will happen
everywhere in the South Pacific.



Latin America is the world's great example of race-mixture. Europeans
and Indians have intermixed from Terra del Fuego to the northern
boundary of Mexico, and the resultant race, with some differences due to
climate, has general points of resemblance over all that vast territory.
There is prompting to speculation as to the reasons why in Spanish and
Portuguese America race mixture was the rule, in Anglo-Saxon America the
exception. It was not the superior kindness of the Latin people which
paved the way to confidence and inter-marriage. No one can doubt that,
badly stained as are the records of the Anglo-Saxons in America, the
records of the Latins are far, far worse. Yet the Latin, between
intervals of massacre, prepared the nuptial couch, and a Latin-Indian
race survives to-day whilst there is no Teutonic-Indian race.

Probably it is a superior sense of racial responsibility and racial
superiority which has kept the Anglo-Saxon colonist from mingling his
blood with that of the races he made subject to him. He shows a
reproduction in a modern people of the old Hebraic spirit of elect
nationality. In truth; there may be advanced some excuse for those
fantastic theorists who write large volumes to prove that ten tribes
were once lost from Israel and might have been found soon after in
Britain. If there were no other circumstances on which to found the
theory (which, I believe, has not the slightest historical basis), the
translation of the Old Testament into the English language would amply
serve. It is the one great successful translation of the world's
literary history: it makes any other version of the Bible in a European
language--including that pseudo-English one done at Douai--seem pallid
and feeble; it rescues the Hebrew sentiment and the Hebrew poetry from
out the morass of the dull Greek translation. And it does all this
seemingly because the Elizabethan Englishman resembled in temperament,
in outlook, in thought, the Chosen People of the time of David.

The Elizabethan Anglo-Saxon wandering out on the Empire trail treated
with cruelty and contempt the Gentile races which he encountered. He has
since learned to treat them with kindness and contempt. But he has never
sunk the contempt, and the contempt saves him from any general practice
of miscegenation. In ruling the blind heathen, more fussy peoples fail
because they wish to set the heathen right: to induce the barbarian to
become as they are. The Anglo-Saxon does not particularly wish to set
the heathen right. He is right: that suffices. It is not possible for
inferior races ever to be like him. It is wise, therefore, to let them
wallow. So long as they give to him the proper reverence, he is
satisfied. Thus the superb, imperturbable Anglo-Saxon holds aloof from
inferior races: governs them coolly, on the whole justly; but never
attempts to share their life. His plan is to enforce strictly from a
subject people the one thing that he wants of them, and to leave the
rest of their lives without interference. They may fill the interval
with hoodoo rites, caste divisions or Mumbo-Jumbo worship, as they
please. So long as such diversions have no seditious tendencies they are
viewed, if not with approval, at least with tolerance. Indeed, if that
be suitable to his purpose, the Anglo-Saxon governor of the heathen will
subsidise the Dark Races' High Priest of Mumbo-Jumbo. Thus a favourite
British remedy for the sorcerer, who is the great evil of the South Sea
Islands, is not a crusade against sorcery, which would be very
troublesome and rather useless, but to purchase over the chief
sorcerers--who come very cheap when translated into English
currency--and make them do their incantations on behalf of orderly
government (insisting, by the way, on more faithful service than Balaam

It is his race arrogance, equally with his robust common-sense, that
makes the Anglo-Saxon the ideal coloniser and governor of Coloured
Races: and there is no room for miscegenation in an ideal system.
America, considered in its two sections, Latin America and Anglo-Saxon
America, gives a good opportunity for comparison of colonising methods.
To-day North of the 30th parallel the Republic of the United States
shows as the greatest White nation of the world, greatest in population
and material prosperity; and the young nation of Canada enters buoyantly
upon the path of a big career. South of that parallel there are great
populations, but they are poor in resources, and as a rule poorly
governed, poorly educated. Some of the Latin-American races show
promise--Chili and the Argentine Republic most of all,--yet none is
comparable or ever likely to be comparable with the Republic of North

Yet before Columbus sailed from Europe the position was exactly
reversed. North of the 30th parallel of northern latitude there was but
a vagabond beginning of civilisation. South of that parallel two fine
nations had built up polities comparable in many respects with those of
the European peoples of to-day. What Peru and Mexico would have become
under conditions of Anglo-Saxon conquest, it is, of course, impossible
to say. But there is an obvious conclusion to be drawn from the fact
that the Anglo-Saxon colonists found a wilderness and built up two great
nations: the Latin colonists found two highly organised civilisations,
and left a wilderness from which there now emerges a hope, faint and not
yet certain, of a Latin-American Power.

The story of Peru is one of the great tragedies of history. The Peruvian
Empire at the time of the Spanish invasion stretched along the Pacific
Ocean over the territory which now comprises Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, and
Chili. Natural conditions along that coastal belt had been favourable to
the growth of civilisation. A strip of land about twenty leagues wide
runs along the coast, hemmed in by the Andes on one side, by the sea on
the other. This strip of coast land is fed by a few scanty streams.
Above, the steppes of the Sierra, of granite and porphyry, have their
heights wrapped in eternal snows. Here was the call for work, which is
the main essential of civilisation. The Peruvians constructed a system
of canals and subterranean aqueducts, wrought with extraordinary skill
by instruments and tools made of stone and copper (though iron was
plentiful its use had not been learned). Thus they cultivated the waste
places. In some respects their life conditions were similar to those of
the Egyptians. Their agriculture was highly advanced and comprehensive.
Their religion was sun-worship, and on it was based a highly organised
theocracy. Tradition said that a son and daughter of the Sun, who were
also man and wife, were sent by their father to teach the secrets of
life to the Peruvians. These divinities were the first Incas.

The civil and military systems of the Peruvians were admirable in
theory, though doomed to break down utterly under the savage test of the
Spanish invasion. The Empire was divided into four parts; into each ran
one of the great roads which diverged from Cuzco ("the navel"), the
capital. The provinces were ruled by viceroys, assisted by councils; all
magistrates and governors were selected from the nobility. By law, the
Peruvian was forced to marry at a certain age. Sufficient land was
allotted him to maintain himself and his wife, and an additional grant
was made for each child. There was a yearly adjustment and renewal of
land grants. Conditions of theocratic and despotic socialism marked most
departments of civil life. In what may be called "foreign politics" the
Incas pursued conquest by a Florentine policy of negotiation and
intrigue. In dealing with neighbouring foes they acted so that when they
at last came into the Peruvian Empire, they should have uncrippled
resources and amicable sentiments. The Spaniards have described the
Peruvians as "lazy, luxurious and sensual." It would have been equally
correct to have said that they were contented, refined and amiable.
Their very virtues made it impossible for them to defend themselves
against the Spaniards.

The Spanish adventurers who were destined to destroy the elegant and
happy civilisation of the Peruvians--a civilisation which had solved the
problem of poverty, and gave to every citizen a comfortable
existence--were children of Spain at her highest pitch of power and
pride. Gold and his God were the two objects of worship of the Spaniard
of that day, and his greed did no more to sully his wild courage with
cruelty than his religion, which had been given a fierce and gloomy bent
towards persecution by the struggles with the Moors.

In 1511 Vasco Nunez da Balboa was told in Mexico of a fabulously rich
land where "gold was as cheap as iron." Balboa in the search for it
achieved the fine feat of crossing from Central America the mountain
rampart of the isthmus. Reaching the Pacific, he rushed into its waters
crying, "I claim this unknown sea with all it contains for the King of
Castile, and I will make good this claim against all who dare to gainsay
it." There Balboa got clearer news of Peru, and pushed on to within
about twenty leagues of the Gulf of St Michael. But the achievement of
Peru was reserved for another man. In 1524 Francisco Pizarro set out
upon the conquest of Peru. Pizarro had all the motives for wild
adventure. An illegitimate child--his father a colonel of infantry, his
mother of humble condition,--he had reached middle age without winning a
fortune, yet without abating his ambition. He was ready for any
desperate enterprise. After two unsuccessful attempts to reach Peru, the
Spanish freebooter finally succeeded, leading a tiny force across the
Andes to Caxamalco, where he encountered the Inca, who received the
strangers peaceably. But no kindness could stave off the lust for gold
and slaughter of the Spaniards. Because the Inca refused at a moment's
notice to accept the Christian God, as explained to him by a Spanish
friar, a holy war was declared against the Peruvians. The wretched
people understood as little the treachery and the resolute cruelty of
the Spaniards as their gunpowder and their horses. Paralysed by their
virtues, they fell easy victims, as sheep to wolves.

A career of rapine and bloodshed led to the complete occupation of the
country by the Spaniards, and the vassalage of the natives. Civil war
amongst the conquerors, into which the natives were willy-nilly dragged,
aggravated the horrors of this murder of a nation. The Spaniards looted
and tortured the men, violated the women, and were so merciless as to
carry on their war even against the natural resources of the country.
They used to kill the llama or native sheep for the sake of its brains,
which were considered a delicacy. Yet Pizarro, in his instructions from
Spain, which secured to him the right of conquest and discovery in Peru,
and various titles and privileges, was expressly enjoined "to observe
all regulations for the good government and protection of the natives."

The fact that the Spaniards condescended to racial mixture with the
Indians did nothing to heal the scars of such suffering. The half-breeds
grew up with a hatred of Spain, and they had borrowed from their fathers
some of their savagery. The mild Peruvian would have bred victims for
generation after generation. The Spanish-Peruvian cross bred avengers.
Early in the nineteenth century Spain was driven out of South America
and a series of Latin-American Republics instituted.

In 1815 the Napoleonic wars having ended with the caging of the great
soldier, Spain proposed to the Holy Alliance of European monarchs a
joint European effort to restore her dominion over the revolted colonies
in South America. But Napoleon had done his work too well to allow of
any alliance, however "holy," to reassert the divine right of kings.
Whilst he had been overthrowing the thrones of Europe, both in North and
South America free nations had won recognition with the blood of their
people. The United States, still nationally an infant, but sturdy
withal, promulgated the Monroe doctrine as a veto on any European war of
revenge against the South American Republics. Great Britain was more
sympathetic to America than to the Holy Alliance. The momentarily
re-established Kings and Emperors of Europe had therefore to hold their
hand. It was a significant year, creating at once a free Latin America
and a tradition that Latin America should look to Anglo-Saxon America
for protection.

Passing north of the Isthmus of Panama, there come up for consideration
another group of Latin-American States of which the racial history
resembles closely that of South America. The little cluster of Central
American States can hardly be taken seriously. Their ultimate fate will
probably be that of Cuba--nominal independence under the close
surveillance of the United States. But, farther north, Mexico claims
more serious attention. Some time before Peru had received the blessings
of civilisation from Pizarro, Mexico had reluctantly yielded her
independence to Cortez, a Spanish leader whose task was much more severe
than that of Pizarro. Whilst the mild Peruvians gave up without a
struggle, the fierce Mexicans contested the issue with stubbornness and
with a courage which was enterprising enough to allow them to seize the
firearms of dead Spanish soldiers and use them against the invaders.

The original Aztec civilisation was warlike and Spartan. Extreme
severity marked the penal codes. Intemperance, the consuming canker of
Indian races, was severely penalised. There were several classes of
slaves, the most unhappy being prisoners of war, who were often used as
sacrificial victims to the gods. Sacrificed human beings were eaten at
banquets attended by both sexes. The Aztecs were constantly at war with
their neighbours, and needed no better pretext for a campaign than the
need to capture sacrifices for their gods.

Grijalba was the first Spaniard to set foot on Mexico. He held a
conference with an Aztec chief, and interchanged toys and trinkets for a
rich treasure of jewels and gold. Cortez, the conqueror of Mexico, was
sent to Mexico by Velasquez, conqueror of Cuba. He landed in Mexico with
the avowed object of Christianising the natives, and considered himself
a Soldier of the Cross. Like a good Crusader, he was ready to argue
with the sword when words failed to convince. For some while he engaged
in amicable relations with the Mexicans, exchanging worthless trifles
for Mexican gold. But eventually various small wars led up to a three
months' siege of the Aztec capital, which fell after a display of grand
courage on the part of the Mexicans. Their civilisation, when at a point
of high development, was then blotted out for ever.

It was in 1521 that the Spaniards first landed in Mexico. Their rule
extended over three centuries. In 1813 Mexico first declared her
independence, and in 1821 achieved the separation from Spain. The war of
liberation had been fierce and sanguinary. It was succeeded by civil
wars which threatened to tear to pieces the new nation. In 1822 an
Empire was attempted. It ended with the assassination of the Emperor,
Augustin de Yturbidi. A series of military dictatorships followed, until
in 1857 a Republican constitution was promulgated. Because this
constitution was strongly anti-clerical, it led to another series of

Meanwhile greedy eyes were fixed upon the rich territories thus ravaged
by civil strife. The United States to the north coveted the coastal
provinces of California. Napoleon III. of France conceived the idea of
reviving French influence on the American continent, and in 1864 helped
to set up the second Empire of Mexico with the unhappy Maximilian at its
head. Maximilian left Europe in the spring of 1864. After three years
of civil war he was shot by the revolutionary commander. His rule had
not commended itself to the Mexicans and was viewed with suspicion by
the United States, which saw in it an attempt to revive European
continental influences.

Then anarchy reigned for many years, until in 1876 the strong hands of
Diaz, one of the great men of the century, took control. He did for the
Mexican revolutionaries what Napoleon had done for the French
Terrorists. But it was different material that he had to work upon. The
Mexicans, their Aztec blood not much improved by an admixture of
European, gave reluctant obedience to Diaz, and he was never able to
lead them towards either a peaceful and stable democracy or a really
progressive despotism. For more than a quarter of a century, however, he
held power, nominally as the elected head of a Republic, really as the
despotic centre of a tiny oligarchy. The country he ruled over, however,
was not the old Spanish Mexico. There had been a steady process of
absorption of territory by her powerful northern neighbour. Over
1,000,000 square miles, included in the rich Californian and Texas
districts, had passed over by right of conquest or forced sale to the
United States. The present area of Mexico is 767,000 square miles. So
more than half of this portion of Spanish America has passed over to the
Stars and Stripes.

The fall of Diaz in 1911 seemed to presage the acquirement by the
United States of the rest of Mexico. There had been for some months
rumours of an alliance between Mexico and Japan, which would have had an
obviously unfriendly purpose towards the United States. The rumours were
steadily denied. But many believed that they had some foundation, and
that the mobilisation of United States troops on the Mexican frontier
was not solely due to the desire to keep the frontier line secure from
invasions by the Mexican revolutionaries. Whatever the real position,
the tension relaxed when the abdication of Diaz allayed for a while the
revolutionary disorders in Mexico. Now (1912) disorder again riots
through Mexico, and again the authorities of the United States are
anxiously considering whether intervention is not necessary.[5]

I am strongly of the opinion that by the time the Panama Canal has been
opened for world shipping, the United States will have found some form
of supervision over all Latin North America necessary: and that her
diplomacy is now shaping also for the inclusion of Latin South America
in an American Imperial system by adding to the present measure of
diplomatic suzerainty which the Monroe doctrine represents a
preferential tariff system. Before discussing that point, the actual
strength of Latin America should be summarised. To-day the chief nations
of Latin America--all of Spanish-Indian or of Portuguese-Indian

The Republic of Argentina, area 3,954,911 square miles; population,
6,489,000 (increasing largely by immigration from all parts of Europe);
revenue, about £20,000,000 a year.

The Republic of Bolivia, area 605,400 square miles; population
2,049,000; revenue, about £1,300,000 a year.

The Republic of Brazil, area 3,218,991 square miles; population
21,461,000 (there is a great European immigration); revenue, about
£18,000,000 a year.

The Republic of Chili, area 2474 square miles; population about
4,500,000; revenue about £1,400,000 a year.

The Republic of Ecuador, area 116,000 square miles; population about
1,400,000; revenue about £1,400,000.

The Republic of Uruguay, area 72,210 square miles; population 1,042,668;
revenue about £5,000,000.

The Republic of Venezuela, area 393,870 square miles; revenue about

The Republic of Paraguay, area 98,000 square miles; population about

The Republic of Mexico, area 767,000 square miles; population about

The total of populations is between 50,000,000 and 60,000,000.

These peoples have the possibility--but as yet only the possibility--of
organising appreciable naval power, and are possessed now of a military
power, not altogether contemptible, and equal to the task at most points
of holding the land against a European or Asiatic invader, if that
invader had to face the United States' naval power also. Presuming their
peaceable acceptance of a plan to embrace them in the ambit of an
American Imperial system--a system which would still leave them with
their local liberties,--there is no doubt at all that they could add
enormously to the strength of the United States. Presuming, on the other
hand, a determined plan on their part to form among themselves a grand
Federal League, and to aim at a Latin-American Empire, they might make
some counterbalance to the power of the United States on the American
continent and in the Pacific.

Neither contingency seems immediately likely. These Latin-American
peoples have not yet shown any genius for self-government. They produce
revolutionary heroes, but not statesmen. Among themselves they quarrel
bitterly, and a Latin-American Confederation does not seem to be
possible. On the other hand, Latin America is jealous of the United
States: resents, whilst it accepts the benefits of, the Monroe doctrine,
and would take as a danger signal any action hostile to the Mexican
Republic which the Anglo-Celtic Republic should be forced to take. Any
attempt on the part of the United States to "force the pace" in regard
to Latin America would saddle her with half a dozen annoying wars.

What seems to be the aim of United States diplomacy, and what seems to
be an attainable aim, is that very gradually the countries of South
America will be brought closer to the northern Republic, coaxed by a
system of reciprocity in trade which would offer them advantageous
terms. Commercial union would thus pave the way to a closer political
union. Such a development would be a very serious detriment to British
trade interests, and to the British position in the Pacific. British
export trade with Latin America is very considerable, amounting to some
£60,000,000 worth a year. The two greatest contributors to the total are
Brazil (£16,426,000 in 1910) and the Argentine Republic (£19,097,000 in
1910). Their communications with Great Britain will be left unchanged
with the opening of the Panama Canal: and that event consequently will
not strengthen American influence there. The same remark applies to
trade with Mexico (£2,399,000 in 1910), with Columbia (£1,196,000), with
Uruguay (£2,940,000). But trade with Peru (£1,315,000) and Chili
(£5,479,000) will be affected by the canal bringing New York competition

There would, however, be a very serious position created for British
trading interests if a proposal were carried out of an American
preferential tariff system embracing the United States and Latin
America. The total of British trade with Latin America (about
£60,000,000) is nearly one-third of the total of British foreign trade
(£183,986,000 in 1910), and is more than half the total British trade
with British possessions. Moreover, it is almost exclusively in lines in
which United States competition is already keenly felt. A tariff
preference of any extent to the United States would drive British goods,
to a large degree, out of the Latin-American market.

The position of Latin America in its effect on the dominance of the
Pacific may be summed up as this: racial instability will probably
prevent the Latin-American nations from federating and forming a great
Power; the veto of the United States will prevent them from falling into
the sphere of influence of any European Power; their jealousy and
distrust of the United States, whether it be without or with reason,
will stand in the way of their speedy absorption in an American Imperial
system. But that absorption seems ultimately inevitable (though its form
will leave their local independence intact). Its first step has been
taken with the Monroe declaration; its second step is now being prepared
with proposals for trade reciprocity.


[5] A dispatch from Washington, February 7, 1912, stated:

President Taft and Secretary Knox held a long conference this morning on
the state of affairs in Mexico, which, it is believed, are worse than is
officially admitted. Reluctant as the President is to take any steps
that might compel intervention or the military occupation of Mexico, he
is forced to view both as ultimate possibilities, and to make
preparations accordingly. Thus the Army on the border is being
strengthened, although thus far no important military movements have
taken place, but the plans are complete for mobilisation.

While Congress is opposed to involving the country in war, or to any
action which will lead to hostilities with Mexico, it will support the
President if war is the only alternative, and the large amount of
British and other foreign capital invested in Mexico makes it incumbent
upon the United States, in view of the Monroe doctrine, to protect the
lives and property of foreigners in the Republic. Otherwise, the duty of
protection must be undertaken by the Governments whose nationals are in
jeopardy, which would be an admission on the part of the United States
that the Monroe doctrine exists for the benefit of the United States,
but imposes no obligations. That is an admission Congress will not make
so long as there is an Army ready to take the field.



The existence, side by side, of two races and two languages in Canada
makes it a matter of some doubt as to what the future Canadian nation
will be. The French race, so far proving more stubborn in its
characteristics than the British race in Canada, has been the
predominant influence up to recently, though its influence has sought
the impossible aim of a French-Canadian nation rather than a Canadian
nation. Thus it was at once a bulwark of national spirit and yet an
obstacle to a genuinely progressive nationalism. Patriotic in its
resistance to all external influences which threatened Canadian
independence, it yet failed in its duty to promote an internal progress
towards a homogeneous people.

Canada, it is perhaps needless to recall to mind, was originally a
French colony. In the sixteenth century, when the British settlements in
America were scattered along the Atlantic seaboard of what is now the
United States, the French colonised in the valley of the Mississippi and
along the course of the great river known as the St Lawrence. Their
design of founding an Empire in America, a "New France," took the bold
form of isolating the seaboard colonies of the British, and effectively
occupying all of what is now the Middle-West of the United States,
together with Canada and the country bordering on the Gulf of Mexico. It
is not possible to imagine greater courage, more patient endurance, more
strenuous enterprise, than was shown by the early founders of New
France. If they did not achieve, they at least fully deserved an Empire.

French colonists in Canada occupied at first the province of Acadia, now
known as Nova Scotia, and the province of Quebec on the River St
Lawrence. Jacques Cartier, a sailor of St Malo, was the first explorer
of the St Lawrence. Acadia was colonised in 1604 by an expedition from
the Huguenot town of La Rochelle, under the command of Champlain, De
Monts, and Poutrincourt. Then a tardy English rivalry was aroused. In
1614 the Governor of Virginia, Sir Thomas Dale, sent an expedition to
Acadia, and took possession of the French fort. That was the first blow
in a long struggle between English and French for supremacy in North
America. In 1629, the date of Richelieu's supremacy in France, an
incident of a somewhat irregular war between England and France was the
capture, by David Kirk, an English Admiral, of Quebec, the newly-founded
capital of "New France"; and the English Flag floated over Fort St
Louis. But it was discovered that this capture had been effected after
peace had been declared between the two European Powers, and, by the
treaty of St Germain-en-Laye, Quebec was restored to France.

But the French colonies in America were still inconsiderable and were
always threatened by the Red Indians, until Colbert, the great Minister
of Louis XIV., made them a royal province, and, with Jean Baptiste Talon
as Governor, Monseigneur Laval as Bishop, and the Marquis de Tracy as
soldier, French Canada was organised under a system of theocratic
despotism. The new régime was strictly paternal. The colonists were
allowed no self-governing rights; a feudal system was set up, and the
land divided into seignories, whose vassals were known as "habitants," a
name which still survives. In all things the Governor and the Bishop
exercised a sway. Wives were brought from France for the habitants,
early marriages and large families encouraged, and religious orthodoxy
carefully safeguarded.

The French Canada of to-day shows the enduring nature of the lessons
which Talon and Laval then inculcated. With the growth of modern thought
the feudal system has passed away, and the habitants are independent
farmers instead of vassals to a seigneur. But in most other things they
are the same as their forefathers of the seventeenth century. When
Canada passed into the hands of the English, it had to be recognised
that there was no hope of holding the country on any terms antagonistic
to the habitants and their firmly fixed principles of life. In regard
to religion, to education, to marriage and many other things, the old
Roman Catholic ecclesiastical influence was preserved, and continues
almost undiminished to this day.

The French-Canadian is a Frenchman of the era before the Revolution--a
Frenchman without scepticism, and with a belief in large families. He is
the Breton peasant of a century ago, who has come to a new land,
increased and multiplied. He is devoutly attached to the Roman Catholic
Church, and follows its guidance in all things.

A somewhat frigid and calculating "loyalty" to Great Britain; a deep
sentimental attachment to France as "the Mother Country"; a rooted
dislike to the United States, founded on the conviction that if Canada
joined the great Republic he would lose his language and religious
privileges--these are the elements which go to the making of the
French-Canadian's national character.

Very jealously the French-Canadian priesthood preserves the ideas of the
ancient order. Marriage of French-Canadians with Protestants, or even
with Roman Catholics of other than French-Canadian blood, is
discouraged. The education of the children--the numerous children of
this race which counts a family not of respectable size until it has
reached a dozen--is kept in the hands of the Church in schools where the
French tongue alone is taught. Thus the French-Canadian influence,
instead of permeating through the whole nation, aims at a people within
a people. The aim cannot be realised; and already the theocratic idea,
on which French-Canadian nationalism is largely based, shows signs of
weakening. There are to be found French-Canadians who are confessedly
"anti-clerical." That marks the beginning of the end. One may foresee in
the near future the French-Canadian element merging in the general mass
of the community to the great benefit of all--of the French-Canadian,
who needs to be somewhat modernised; of the British-Canadian, who will
be all the better for a mingling of a measure of the exalted idealism
and spiritual strength of the French element; and of the nation at
large, for a complete merging of the two races, French and British, in
Canada would produce a people from which might be expected any degree of

Canada, facing to-day both the Atlantic and the Pacific, has the
possibilities of greatness on either ocean, or indeed on both; I do not
think it a wild forecast to say that ultimately her Pacific provinces
may be greater than those bordering the Atlantic, and may draw to their
port a large share of the trade of the Middle-West. Entering Canada by
her Pacific gate, and passing through the coastal region over the
Selkirks and Rockies to the prairie, one sees all the material for the
making of a mighty nation. The coastal waters, and the rivers flowing
into them, teem with fish, and here are the possibilities of a huge
fishing population. At present those possibilities are, in the main,
neglected, or allowed to be exploited by Asiatics. But a movement is
already afoot to organise their control for the benefit of a British
population. The coastal strip and the valleys running into the ranges
are mild of climate and rich of soil. An agricultural population of
10,000,000 could here find sustenance, first levying toll on the great
forests, and later growing grain and fruit. Within the ranges are great
stores of minerals, from gold down to coal and iron. Everywhere are
rushing rivers and rapids to provide electrical power. Fishermen,
lumbermen, farmers, mountain graziers, miners, manufacturers--for all
these there is golden opportunity. The rigours of the Eastern Canadian
climate are missing: but there is no enervating heat. The somewhat
old-fashioned traditions of the Eastern provinces are also missing, and
the people facing the Pacific have the lusty confidence of youth.

At present the balance of political power in Canada is with the east.
But each year sees it move farther west. The Pacific provinces count for
more and more, partly from their increasing population, partly from
their increasing influence over the prairie farmers and ranchers. The
last General Election in Canada showed clearly this tendency. In every
part of the nation there was a revulsion from the political ideals
represented by Sir Wilfrid Laurier: and that revulsion was most complete
in the west, where as a movement it had had its birth.

It would be outside of the scope of this book to discuss the domestic
politics of Canada, but the Canadian General Election of 1911 was so
significant in its bearing on the future of the Pacific, that some
reference to its issues and decisions is necessary. Sir Wilfrid Laurier
up to 1911 had held the balance even between the British and the French
elements in Canada without working for their amalgamation. His aim
always was to pursue a programme of peaceful material development. With
the ideals of British Imperialism he had but little real sympathy, and
his conception of the duty of the Canadian nation was that it should
grow prosperous quickly, push forward with its railways, and avoid
entangling participation in matters outside the boundaries of Canada. He
was not blind to the existence of the United States Monroe doctrine as a
safeguard to Canadian territory against European invasion, and was not
disposed to waste money on armaments which, to his mind, were
unnecessary. The Canadian militia, which from the character of the
people might have been the finest in the world, was allowed to become a
mostly ornamental institution.[6]

At the Imperial Defence Conference in 1909, Sir Wilfrid refused to
follow the lead of other self-governing Dominions in organising Fleet
units, and the Canadian attitude was recorded officially as this:

"As regards Canada, it was recognised that while on naval strategical
considerations a Fleet unit on the Pacific might in the future form an
acceptable system of naval defence, Canada's double seaboard rendered
the provision of such a Fleet unit unsuitable for the present. Two
alternative plans, based upon annual expenditures respectively of
£600,000 and £400,000, were considered, the former contemplating the
provision of four cruisers of the 'Bristol' class, one cruiser of the
'Boadicea' class, and six destroyers of the improved 'River' class, the
'Boadicea' and destroyers to be placed on the Atlantic side and the
'Bristol' cruisers to be divided between the Atlantic and Pacific
oceans." Yet it had been expected that Canada would at least have
followed the Australian offer of a Pacific Fleet unit at a cost of
£3,000,000 a year.

Sir Wilfrid Laurier's fall came when, in the natural development of his
ideals of a peaceful and prosperous Canada, sharing none of the
responsibilities of the British Empire, but reckoning for her safety
partly on its power, partly on the power of the United States, he
proposed to enter into a Trade Reciprocity Treaty with the United
States. The proposal was fiercely attacked, not only on the ground that
it represented a partial surrender of Canadian nationalist ideals, but
also on the charge that it was against the interests of British
Imperialism. At the General Election which followed, Sir Wilfrid Laurier
was decisively defeated. As an indication of the issues affecting the
result, there is the anecdote that one of Sir Wilfrid Laurier's
supporters ascribed the defeat chiefly to "the chap who wrote 'Rule

Canada to-day faces the future with a purpose made clear, of cherishing
her separate nationalism and her partnership in the British Empire. She
will cultivate friendship with the United States, but she will not
tolerate anything leading to absorption with the great Republic: and she
will take a more active part in the defence of the Empire. The Laurier
naval policy, which was to spend a little money uselessly, has been set
aside, and Canada's share in the naval defence of the Empire is to be
discussed afresh with the British Admiralty. A military reorganisation,
of which the full details are not available yet, is also projected. It
is known that the Defence Minister, Colonel Hughes, intends to
strengthen the rural regiments, to establish local in addition to
central armouries, and to stimulate recruiting by increasing the pay of
the volunteers. He also contemplates a vigorous movement for the
organisation of cadet corps throughout the whole country. It is a
reasonable forecast that Canada, in the near future, will contribute to
the defence of the Pacific a Fleet unit based on a "Dreadnought" cruiser
and a militia force capable of holding her western coast against any but
a most powerful invader. Her ultimate power in the Pacific can hardly be
over-estimated. The wheat lands of the Middle-West and the cattle lands
of the West will probably find an outlet west as well as east, when the
growing industrial populations of Asia begin to come as customers into
the world's food markets. Electric power developed in the great mountain
ranges will make her also a great manufacturing nation: and she will
suffer less in the future than in the past from the draining away of the
most ambitious of her young men to the United States. The tide of
migration has turned, and it is Canada now which draws away young blood
from the Southern Republic.


[6] It can be at least said on behalf of the Canadian militia that their
condition was no worse than that of the militia of the United States. In
1906 Mr President Taft (then Secretary for War) contributed a preface to
a pamphlet by Mr Huidekoper on the United States Army. Mr Taft then

"Our confidence in ourselves and in our power of quickly adapting
circumstances to meet any national emergency so far has carried away
some of our public men so that they have been deliberately blind to the
commonest and most generally accepted military principles, and they have
been misled by the general success or good luck which has attended us in
most of our wars. The awful sacrifice of life and money which we had to
undergo during the four years in order to train our civil war veterans
and to produce that army is entirely forgotten, and the country is
lulled into the utterly unfounded assurance that a volunteer enlisted
to-day, or a militiaman enrolled to-morrow, can in a week or month be
made an effective soldier. The people of this country and the Government
of this country, down to the time of the Spanish War, had pursued a
policy which seemed utterly to ignore the lessons of the past."

Mr Huidekoper (an acknowledged expert) maintained:--

"Judged by purely military standards, the invasion of Cuba was a trivial
affair; but never in modern times has there been an expedition which
contained so many elements of weakness; that it succeeded at all is,
indeed, a marvel. The disorders of demoralisation and incapacity which
attended the opening operations were nothing but the logical outcome of
the unwillingness of Congress to prepare for war until the last possible
moment, and merely demonstrated once again the utterly vicious system to
which our legislators have persistently bound us, by neglecting to
provide a force of thoroughly trained soldiers either large enough or
elastic enough to meet the requirements of war as well as peace,
supported by a militia which has previously had sufficient training to
make it, when called out as volunteers, fairly dependable against the
regular forces of other nations."

Then in 1911, Mr Dickinson, U.S. Secretary for War, in an official
report, condemned absolutely the U.S. militia on the grounds that: "It
is lacking in proper proportions of cavalry, field artillery, engineer,
signal corps and sanitary troops; it is not fully or properly organised
into the higher units, brigades and divisions; it has no reserve
supplies of arms and field equipment to raise its units from a peace to
a war footing; it is so widely scattered throughout the country as to
make its prompt concentration impossible; its personnel is deficient in
training; it is to a degree deficient in physical stamina, and has upon
its rolls a large number of men who by reason of their family relations
and business responsibilities cannot be counted upon for service during
any long period of war."

It will thus be seen that not only in Canada, but also in the United
States, the militia has become "mostly ornamental." But the United
States is now awakening to the possibility of having to defend the
Pacific coast against an Asiatic Power or combination of Powers holding
command of the ocean, and promises to reorganise her militia. It is
perhaps interesting to note that whilst to-day the British Imperial
Defence authorities discourage Canada from any militia dispositions or
manoeuvres founded on the idea of an invasion from the United States,
the militia of the Republic, when it takes the field for mimic warfare,
often presumes "an invasion by the British forces."



The present year (1912) is not a good one for an estimate of the naval
forces of the Pacific. The Powers interested in the destiny of that
ocean have but recently awakened to a sense of the importance of speedy
naval preparation to avert, or to face with confidence, the struggle
that they deem to be impending. By 1915 the naval forces in the Pacific
will be vastly greater, and the opening of the Panama Canal will have
materially altered the land frontiers of the ocean. A statement of the
naval forces of to-day, to be useful, must be combined with a reasonable
forecast of their strength in 1915.

Following, for convenience' sake, geographical order, the Pacific Powers
have naval strength as follows:--

_Russia._--Russia is spending some £12,000,000 a year on her navy, and
is said to contemplate a force of sixteen "Dreadnoughts." Of these, four
are now in hand, but the date of their completion is uncertain. At
present Russia has no effective naval force in the Pacific, and but
little elsewhere. The "Dreadnoughts" building--which are of a
much-criticised type--are intended for use in European waters. The
naval force of Russia in the Pacific for the present and the near future
may be set down as negligible.

_Japan._--Japan has two battleships of the "Dreadnought" class, the
_Satsuma_ and the _Aki_, in actual commission. By the time that this
book is in print there should be two more in commission. They were
launched in November 1910. According to modern methods of computation,
a navy can be best judged by its "Dreadnought" strength, always
presuming that the subsidiary vessels of a Fleet unit--cruisers,
destroyers and submarines--are maintained in proper proportion of
strength. Japan's naval programme aims at a combination of fortress
ships ("Dreadnoughts"), speed ships (destroyers) and submarines, in
practically the same proportion as that ruling in the British navy. The
full programme, at first dated for completion in 1915, now in 1920,
provides for twenty modern battleships, twenty modern armoured
cruisers, one hundred destroyers, fifty submarines and various other
boats. But it is likely that financial need will prevent that programme
from being realised. For the current year the Japanese naval estimates
amount to £8,800,000. At present the Japanese navy includes some two
hundred ships, of which thirty-eight are practically useless. The
possibly useful Fleet comprises seventeen battleships and battleship
cruisers, nine armoured cruisers, fifty-seven destroyers, twelve
submarines, four torpedo gunboats and forty-nine torpedo boats.

The Japanese navy is by far the strongest force in the Pacific, and is
the only navy in the world with actual experience of up-to-date warfare,
though its experience, recent as it is, has not tested the value of the
"Dreadnought" type, which theoretically is the only effective type of

_China._--At present China has twenty-six small boats in commission and
five building. Her biggest fighting ship is a protected cruiser carrying
six-inch guns. The naval strength of China is thus negligible.

_The United States._--The United States cannot be considered as a
serious Pacific naval Power until the Panama Canal has been
completed.[7] Then under certain circumstances the greater part of her
Fleet would be available for service in the Pacific. She spends some
£26,000,000 yearly on her navy. She has at present four "Dreadnoughts"
in commission, and by the time that this book is in print should have
six. Her building programme provides for two new "Dreadnoughts," and the
proper complement of smaller craft, each year.

In the last annual report on the United States navy (December 1911),
Secretary Meyer stated that a total of forty battleships, with a
proportional number of other fighting and auxiliary vessels, was the
least that would place the United States on a safe basis in its
relations with the other world Powers, and "while at least two other
Powers have more ambitious building plans, it is believed that if we
maintain an efficient Fleet of the size mentioned, we shall be secure
from attack, and our country will be free to work out its destiny in
peace and without hindrance. The history of all times, including the
present, shows the futility and danger of trusting to good-will and fair
dealing, or even to the most solemnly binding treaties between nations,
for the protection of a nation's sovereign rights and interests, and
without doubt the time is remote when a comparatively unarmed and
helpless nation may be reasonably safe from attack by ambitious
well-armed Powers, especially in a commercial age such as the present."

Battleships 36 and 37, at the time in course of construction, were, he
claimed, a distinct advance on any vessels in existence. These vessels
would be oil-burners, and would carry no coal. They were to be of about
the same size as the _Delaware_, but their machinery would weigh 3000
tons less, or a saving of 30 per cent., and the fire-room force would be
reduced by 50 per cent. Concluding his report, Mr. Meyer said: "The
Panama Canal is destined to become the most important strategical point
in the Western Hemisphere, and makes a Caribbean base absolutely
necessary. The best base is Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, which Cuba has ceded
to the United States for naval purposes. This base will enable the
United States to control the Caribbean with all its lines of approach to
the canal, and, with a torpedo base at Key West, will render the Gulf of
Mexico immune from attack."

A new type of war machine, which is a combination of a submarine and a
torpedo boat, is now being prepared for use in the United States navy.
She is known as the "sub-surface torpedo boat." There is a submarine
hull with machinery and torpedo armaments, and a surface hull--said to
be unsinkable--divided into compartments. The whole vessel weighs six
tons, can be carried on the deck of a battleship, travels eighteen knots
an hour for a radius of two hundred miles, and needs a crew of two men.
She carries a thousand pounds of gun-cotton. The sub-surface boat may be
used as an ordinary torpedo boat, or she may be bodily directed at a
hostile ship after her crew of two have left. It is estimated that the
sub-surface boat will cost about £5000, all told, and it seems possible
that it will be a serious weapon of naval warfare.

_Great Britain._--Great Britain spent last year nearly £45,000,000 on
her navy, which is the supreme naval force of the world. But its weight
in a Pacific combat at present would be felt chiefly in regard to
keeping the ring clear. No European Power hostile to Great Britain could
send a Fleet into the Pacific. The United States could not despatch its
Atlantic Fleet for service in the Pacific without a foreknowledge of
benevolent neutrality on the part of Great Britain.

At the Imperial Defence Conference of 1909, it was decided to re-create
the British Pacific Fleet, which, after the alliance with Japan, had
been allowed to dwindle to insignificance. The future Pacific naval
strength of Great Britain may be set down, estimating most
conservatively, at a unit on the China station consisting of one
"Dreadnought" cruiser, three swift unarmoured cruisers, six destroyers
and three submarines. This would match the Australian unit of the same
strength. But it is probable that a far greater strength will shortly be
reached. It may be accepted as an axiom that the British--_i.e._ the
Home Country--Fleet in Pacific waters will be at least kept up to the
strength of the Australian unit. The future growth of that unit is
indicated in the report on naval defence presented to the Commonwealth
Government by Admiral Sir Reginald Henderson, a report which has been
accepted in substance.

He proposes a completed Fleet to be composed as follows:--

                  8 Armoured Cruisers,
                 10 Protected Cruisers,
                 18 Destroyers,
                 12 Submarines,
                  3 Depôt Ships for Flotillas,
                  1 Fleet Repair Ship,

This Fleet would, when fully manned, require a personnel of
approximately 15,000 officers and men.

The Fleet to be divided into two divisions as follows:--

                     EASTERN DIVISION.
 |                           |           Number.        |
 |                           +-----------+-------+------+
 |  Class of Vessel.         |In Full    | With  |Total.|
 |                           |Commission.|Reduced|      |
 |                           |           | Crew. |      |
 |                           |           |       |      |
 |Armoured cruiser           |      3    |   1   |   4  |
 |Protected cruiser          |      3    |   2   |   5  |
 |Torpedo-boat destroyer     |      8    |   4   |  12  |
 |Submarine                  |      3    |  ...  |   3  |
 |Depôt ship for torpedo-boat|           |       |      |
 |  destroyers               |      2    |  ...  |   2  |
 |Fleet repair ship          |     ...   |  ...  |  ... |
 |                           +-----------+-------+------+
 |               Total       |     19    |   7   |  26  |
 |                                                      |
 |                   WESTERN DIVISION.                  |
 |                                                      |
 |Armoured cruiser           |      3    |   1   |   4  |
 |Protected cruiser          |      3    |   2   |   5  |
 |Torpedo-boat destroyer     |      4    |   2   |   6  |
 |Submarine                  |      9    |  ...  |   9  |
 |Depôt ship for torpedo-boat|           |       |      |
 |  destroyers               |      1    |  ...  |   1  |
 |Fleet repair ship          |      1    |  ...  |   1  |
 |                           +-----------+-------+------+
 |               Total       |     21    |   5   |  26  |
 |    Grand total of both    |           |       |      |
 |      divisions            |     40    |  12   |  52  |

That would necessitate £3,000,000 a year expenditure for the first five
years, rising gradually to £5,000,000 a year. To this the Australian
Government is understood to be agreeable.

New Zealand does not propose to organise a naval force of her own, but
will assist the British Admiralty with a subsidy. That subsidy is to be
devoted to the use of the unit in China waters.

Canada's naval plans at present are not known. After the Imperial
Defence Conference of 1909 Sir Wilfrid Laurier found both his instincts
for frugality and for peace outraged by the forward policy favoured by
other of the Dominions. He decided to sacrifice the former and not the
latter, and embarked on a naval programme which, whilst it involved a
good deal of expenditure, made it fairly certain that no Canadian
warship would ever fire a shot in anger, since none would be completed
until she had become hopelessly obsolete. His successor in office has
stopped that naval programme. It is possible that the new administration
will decide that Canada should contribute in some effective form to
Imperial naval defence, and she may be responsible for a naval unit in
the Pacific.

_Latin America._--Brazil (whose interests, however, are in the Atlantic
rather than the Pacific) has two modern battleships of the "Dreadnought"
type, and one other building. Chili has at present no really modern
warship, but projects two "Dreadnoughts" and up-to-date small craft. The
existing Fleet consists of one battleship, two armoured cruisers, and
four protected cruisers. The Republic of Argentine has at present
several vessels practically obsolete, the most modern cruisers having
been built in 1896. There are three battleships, four armoured
cruisers, and three protected cruisers. A modern navy is projected with,
as a nucleus, two 25,000-ton battleships of twenty-two knots, armed with
twelve-inch guns. Mexico, Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Uruguay,
Venezuela, have no useful Fleets.

The following table will give as accurate a forecast as possible of
naval strength in the Pacific in the immediate future:--

           "DREADNOUGHT" TYPES IN 1912 AND 1915.

                                  1912.   1915.

           British Empire          20      38
           Germany                 11      21
           United States            8      14
           Japan                    4       8
           Brazil                   3       4
           Argentine Republic     ...       2
           Chili                  ...       2

_Note._--All the South American "Dreadnoughts" are open to some doubt,
though Brazil has three vessels of the type actually in the water.
Battleships and cruisers of the "Dreadnought" type are included in the
above table. It has been computed on the presumption that there will be
no change in the 1912 naval programmes. The United States, the British
Empire and Japan, are stronger in battleships of the pre-Dreadnought
period than is Germany. Russia is ignored, for she has no present
intention of restoring her Pacific naval Power. Germany is included
because of her future position as the second naval Power of the world,
and her possible appearance in the Pacific as the ally of one or other
of the Powers established there now.

The following additional table deals not merely with warships of the
"Dreadnought" type, but with the effective tonnage, _i.e._ the tonnage
of ships of all classes of the three greatest naval Powers:--

           "EFFECTIVE TONNAGE" IN 1912 AND 1913-14.

                              1912.        1913-14.

         British Empire    1,896,149      2,324,579
         United States       757,711       885,066
         Germany             749,699     1,087,399


[7] A "Reuter" telegram from Washington, dated March 17, stated:

"Significant orders have been issued by the Navy Department directing
three big armoured cruisers of the Pacific Fleet to proceed immediately
to the Philippines for an indefinite stay. Their arrival will make the
American Fleet in the Orient the most powerful there excepting the
Japanese. The vessels under order are the cruisers _California_, _South
Dakota_, and _Colorado_."



The military forces available for service in the Pacific are those (1)
of Russia; (2) of China; (3) of Japan; (4) of the United States; (5) of
the British Empire including India; (6) of the Latin-American peoples of
Mexico and South America. The great armies of France, Germany, and
Austro-Hungary can have no voice in the destinies of the Pacific Ocean
unless indirectly, as, for instance, through Germany or Austria helping
or hindering a Russian movement in the Far East by guaranteeing or
threatening her European frontier.

The Russian army, though driven back by the forces of Japan during the
recent war, still demands respectful consideration in any calculations
as to the future of the Asian littoral of the Pacific Ocean. The
Russians, as has been pointed out in a previous chapter, fought that
campaign under many serious disadvantages. The Siberian railway gave
them a very slender line of communication with their base. Now that
railway is being duplicated, and in a future war would have at least
double its old military capacity. The conditions of unrest at home in
Russia during the war were so serious as almost to paralyse the
executive government. Those conditions are not likely to be repeated,
since Russia has now entered upon a fairly peaceful, if somewhat slow,
progress towards constitutional reform. In a war on a land frontier for
which the people were enthusiastic, the military power of Russia would
be tremendous, though there was never any real foundation for the bogey
of Russia as an all-powerful aggressive force.

The Russian army, based upon conditions of universal liability to
service, can muster in the field for war some 4,000,000 of men. But
considering the vast frontiers to be defended, and the great claims
therefore made by garrison fortresses, it is not likely that more than
1,500,000 could be mobilised in any one district. It is reasonably
possible to imagine a Russian army of a million men being brought to and
maintained on the Pacific littoral: of an even greater army based on,
say, Harbin. That would be a formidable force, especially if enrolled to
fight for the White Races against an Asiatic peril: for then it would
share the old military enthusiasm of the Cossacks.

There is nothing which will give the inquirer into national
characteristics a better key to the Russian than a knowledge of the old
Cossack organisation. It was formed, in the days of Russia's making as a
nation, from the free spirits of the land, suffering on the one side
from Turkish cruelty, on the other from the devastations of the
Tartars. "Cossacks" meant simply "free men," and, at the outset, they
were freebooters mainly, the Robin Hoods and Hereward the Wakes of
Russia. But the patriotic work of resisting the Tartars and the Turks
gave them a national aim, and in time they formed a military and
religious organisation, unique in the history of European civilisation.
From the village Cossacks--irregular volunteer troops, pursuing normally
the life of villagers, but ready ever to take up arms against Tartar or
Turkish bandits, or to become in turn themselves raiders of the enemy's
caravans and villages--sprung up the Cossack Zaporojskoe, garrisoning
the "Setch," a great military camp in the heart of the Cossack country.
The Cossacks who joined the Setch devoted themselves wholly to military
life. They had to swear to complete chastity, to abstinence whilst at
war from alcohol, and to obedience to the Greek Church. The Cossack
could leave the Setch if he were so inclined, but while he remained
within its boundaries discipline was inexorable.

In the Setch there was neither organised training, nor compulsory drill,
nor military manoeuvres. With the exception of a few elected officers,
there were, in time of peace, no social distinctions; but the bravest
and the most experienced were treated with respect. For war a Cossack
was elected to command each hundred men; his power was absolute. Several
hundreds formed a regiment, with a colonel at its head, a temporary
officer, elected for one campaign only. The organisation had some
artillery and infantry, but its chief strength lay in its cavalry. It
also built a Fleet of small boats with which it repeatedly raided the
Turkish coast.

This military monastic order passed away with the closer organisation of
the Russian nation. Despotic Czars could not tolerate a community so
formidable in its virtues. Characteristically enough, it was Catherine
the Great who dealt the final blow to the Cossack Setch. But the Cossack
organisation and spirit, as well as the Cossack name, survive in the
Russian army to-day, and the million or so men whom Russia could muster
on the shores of the North Pacific might have some great say in the
future destinies of the ocean.

The Japanese army of to-day, an army of veterans, must be credited, in
calculating its value as a military engine, with the moral force of its
record of victory. I confess to a belief in the superiority of the White
Man, _qua_ White Man over any Asiatic: and I am not inclined, therefore,
to accept Japanese generalship and Japanese initiative at their Tokio
valuation. But the 600,000 men whom Japan can put into the field,
perfect in discipline, armed as to the infantry with a first-class
rifle, a little deficient though they may be in artillery and cavalry,
is a most formidable force, unassailable in Japan's home territory, not
to be regarded lightly if called to a campaign on the Asiatic mainland.
Since the war with Russia the Japanese army has been increased: the fact
is evidence of the unslaked warlike enthusiasm of the people.

China will probably emerge from her present revolutionary troubles,
whatever may be their result, with a seasoned army of great proportions.
The actual military organisation of China at the time of the outbreak of
the present revolt was somewhat nebulous. But an effort was being made
to organise an Imperial army (on plans laid down in 1905) which would
have numbered about 360,000 men trained on the Japanese model. Should
the reformed China decide to follow in the footsteps of Japan as regards
military organisation, the Chinese field force of the future would
number some 2,500,000 men. It is already announced that the new Chinese
Republic will adopt universal military training as part of its system of
national reorganisation.

The United States, relying on a purely voluntary system for its military
organisation, has, in the opinion of most critics, the framework of an
army rather than an army. The peace strength of the United States
regular army is about 100,000, and from these the Philippine garrison
draws 13,000 men, and the Hawaiian garrison 1000 of all ranks. A
partially trained militia numbers about 100,000 men. For the rest there
are 16,000,000 of men of military age in the nation, but they are
absolutely untrained. In case of a powerful enemy obtaining naval
control of the Pacific, there is danger that the United States would
suffer the ignominy of the occupation, for a time, of her Pacific coast.

British military forces available for the Pacific come under three

     British garrisons in India and elsewhere in the Pacific.

     The citizen armies of Australia and New Zealand, and the militia
     forces of Canada.

     The Sepoy forces in India.

The British garrisons total some 80,000 men. They may be classed,
without prejudice, among the best troops in the world, well trained and
with some experience of warfare. But the majority of them are stationed
in India, and few of them could be safely drawn from there in an
emergency. The Sepoy troops number some 250,000, officered generally by
British leaders. It is conceivable that a portion of them could be used
outside of India against coloured races.

The citizen armies of Australia and New Zealand must be spoken of in the
future tense: for their organisation has just begun, and it will be some
five years before that organisation will be well under way. But so
important is the bearing on Pacific problems of the training of some
quarter of a million of citizen soldiers in the Australasian Dominions
of the British Empire, that attention must be given here to a
description of this army of the future.

Taking the Australian organisation as the model: The population of
Australia in 1911 was about 4-1/2 millions, of whom there were, on the
basis of the last census--

    188,000 males of 14 years and under 18 years; and
    295,000 males of 18 years and under 25 years.

Allowing for those living in districts too thinly populated to admit of
training without excessive expenditure, or medically unfit for training,
upon the figures at present available, it is estimated that Australia
will have in training, when the scheme is in full operation, each year--

    100,000 senior cadets; and
    112,000 citizen soldiers.

The system will give in eight years' time a force of 126,000 trained
men, and fully equipped. Every year afterwards will increase the reserve
by 12,000 men. And if the training be extended into the country areas,
the numbers may be increased by 40 per cent. Increase of population will
bring, too, an increase of numbers, and my estimate of an eventual
200,000 for the Australian army and 50,000 for the New Zealand army is
probably correct.

For the leading positions in this army there is provision to train a
number of professional officers. The Military College of Australia is
already in existence, and is organised on a basis of simplicity and
efficiency which reflects the serious purpose of this democratic
military organisation. It is not reserved for the children of the rich.
It is not allowed to become intolerable to the children of the poor by
the luxury of wealthy cadets. To quote from the official conditions:--

"The Military College of Australia is established to educate candidates
for commissions in all arms of the Military Forces of the Commonwealth.

"Only candidates who intend to make the Military Forces their profession
in life will be admitted as Cadets to the Military College. Parents or
guardians are therefore not at liberty to withdraw their sons or wards
at will.

"Cadets, in joining the Military College, shall be enlisted in the
Permanent Military Forces for a term of twelve years. Service as a Cadet
at the Military College shall be deemed service in the ranks of the
Permanent Military Forces of the Commonwealth.

"No fees will be charged for equipment or instruction or maintenance of
Cadets, and their travelling expenses within the Commonwealth between
their parents' or guardians' residences and the College will be paid on
first joining and on graduation.

"The following charges will be admitted against the public and credited
to Cadets' accounts after they have joined:--

     "Outfit allowance--£30 on joining.

     "Daily allowance of five shillings and sixpence (5s. 6d.) to cover
     cost of uniform and clothing, books, instruments, messing, washing
     and other expenses.

"No Cadet will be permitted to receive money, or any other supplies from
his parents or guardians, or any person whomsoever, without the
sanction of the Commandant. A most rigid observance of this order is
urged upon all parents and guardians, as its violation would make
distinctions between Cadets, which it is particularly desired to

"No Cadet, when within the Federal Territory, or when absent on duty
from College, or when in uniform, shall drink any spirituous or
intoxicating liquor, or bring or cause the same to be brought within the
College, or have the same in his room, tent, or otherwise in his

"Gambling, lotteries, and raffles are strictly prohibited. They are
serious offences, which will be severely punished.

"Smoking may be permitted during certain hours and in authorised places.
The smoking of cigarettes is at all times prohibited. A Cadet found in
possession of cigarettes is liable to punishment for disobedience of

Canada has a militia force credited at present with a total strength of
55,000 men. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who controlled the destinies of Canada
for fifteen years up to 1911, was no military enthusiast and believed
profoundly in a peaceful future for his country. In one respect, and in
one respect only, Canada under his rule progressed in defence
organisation: she had her own rifle factory turning out a rifle of
Canadian design.

But a new spirit moves in Canada to-day in matters of Defence as in
other things. I remember in 1909 speaking at Toronto in advocacy of a
system of universal training for military service. Lieut.-Col. Wm.
Hamilton Merritt, a Canadian militia officer who had learned enthusiasm
for the idea of a "citizen army" on a visit to Switzerland, invited me
to come up to Toronto from New York to speak on the Australian campaign
for the universal training of citizens. The meeting was friendly but not
particularly enthusiastic. My strongest recollection of it is that one
Canadian paper most unjustifiably and absurdly twisted some words of
mine advocating Canadian self-reliance into advice that Canada should
arm "to attack the United States." But the outcome of the meeting was
that a "Canadian Patriotic League" was formed, and from it sprang the
"Canadian Defence League, a non-political association to urge the
importance to Canada of universal physical and naval or military
training." For two years and more, in spite of the earnest efforts of
Canadian enthusiasts, the movement languished. After the General
Election of 1911, however, a quickening came to every department of
Canadian life, and this particularly showed itself in matters of
Defence. In November of that year, Colonel the Hon. S. Hughes, the
Canadian Minister of Militia, called a conference of experts to consider
the organisation of the militia. To that conference the Canadian Defence
League was invited to send representatives, and their presence seemed to
inspire the whole gathering with an enthusiasm for a universal service
system. Summarising from a report sent to me by the Canadian Defence
League: "Universal military training has at last become a live issue
throughout the Dominion of Canada. It was the mainspring behind the
whole machinery of the Militia Conference; almost every man present was
in favour of it, but a few, if the question had come to vote, would have
either refrained from voting or voted against it, because they were
afraid of the possibility of being misunderstood by the public at large.
The cavalry section made no recommendation, and the infantry section
discussed it, while the artillery, which is always in the front, was
strongly in favour of it. Colonel Logie of Hamilton moved and Colonel
Fotheringham of Toronto seconded a resolution recommending the adoption
of the Australian system in Canada. This motion was with a view to
placing the conference on record; but the Minister, in his wisdom, held
the resolution in abeyance, and it did not come to a vote. But in the
closing hours of the conference Senator Power of Nova Scotia positively
and definitely advocated universal military training for the whole of

A universal service system in Canada would provide a citizen army
of--probably--250,000 men of the finest type: and the effect of this
force on Pacific issues would be equal to that of the combined armies of
Australia and New Zealand.

The military strength of Latin America (the South American Republics and
Mexico) it is difficult to estimate accurately. In almost all cases the
constitution of the Republics provides for "universal service" but fails
to provide for universal training for service. Under modern conditions
of warfare, it is useless to enact that men shall serve unless the
necessary sacrifices of money and leisure are made to train them to
serve. Raw levies could be made of some use almost immediately in a past
epoch of warfare, when the soldier with his "Brown Bess" musket had the
injunction from the drill sergeant to "wait until he could see the
whites of the eyes" of his enemy and then to fire. That needed stolid
nerves mainly, and but little training. In these days raw levies would
be worse than useless, of no value in battles, a burden on the
commissariat and hospital services between battles. The Latin-American
armies must be judged in the light of that fact. Apart from that
caution, the numbers are imposing enough.

Mexico has an army organisation providing for 30,000 men on a peace
footing and 84,000 men on a war footing. The Argentine army on a peace
footing is about 18,000 strong; on a war footing about 120,000 strong,
exclusive of the National Guard and Territorial troops (forming a second
line). In the Republic of Bolivia the peace footing of the army is 2500:
the probable war footing 30,000. The Republic of Brazil has a universal
service system. The peace strength of the army is 29,000 (to which may
be added a gendarmerie of 20,000). On the outbreak of war there could be
mobilised, it is claimed, five divisions totalling, say, 60,000 men.
Chili has, on a peace footing, about 10,000 men; on a war footing
50,000, exclusive of the reserves (about 34,000). Colombia makes every
man liable to service, but the training is not regular. Possibly 10,000
men could be mobilised in time of war. Ecuador maintains a permanent
force of about 5000 men, and claims that it could mobilise 90,000 in
case of war. Paraguay has a permanent force of 2500 men and a National
Guard available for service in case of war.

The South American has proved himself, on occasions, a good and plucky
fighter. But I doubt whether his military forces can be seriously
considered as a factor in the fate of the Pacific, except in the matter
of defending his own territory from invasion. The only armies that count
greatly to-day in the Pacific are those of Japan, Russia, and Great
Britain, in that order, with China and the United States as potential
rather than actual military forces.



There is one actual alliance between two Pacific Powers, Great Britain
and Japan: an _entente_ between Great Britain and Russia: and an
instinct towards friendliness between Great Britain and the United
States. There are several other possible combinations affecting the
ocean in the future. But no Power of the Triple Alliance, nor yet
France, can be considered a factor in the Pacific except in so far as it
may help or hinder a Power already established there. Germany, for
instance, might enter the Pacific as an ally of Japan or the United
States; but she could not without an alliance bring naval or military
force there unless Great Britain had first been humbled in a European

To the alliance between Great Britain and Japan not very much importance
can be ascribed since its revision in 1911. It threatens to die now of
inanition, as it becomes clear that British aims and Japanese aims in
the Pacific do not move towards a common end. The first British-Japanese
treaty, signed on January 30, 1902, had for its main provisions--

"The Governments of Great Britain and Japan, actuated solely by a desire
to maintain the _status quo_ and general peace in the extreme East,
being moreover specially interested in maintaining the independence and
territorial integrity of the Empire of China and the Empire of Corea,
and in securing equal opportunities in those countries for the commerce
and industry of all nations, hereby agree as follows:--

"The High Contracting Parties, having mutually recognised the
independence of China and of Corea, declare themselves to be entirely
uninfluenced by any aggressive tendencies in either country. Having in
view, however, their special interests, of which those of Great Britain
relate principally to China, while Japan, in addition to the interests
which she possesses in China, is interested in a peculiar degree
politically, as well as commercially and industrially, in Corea, the
High Contracting Parties recognise that it will be admissible for either
of them to take such measures as may be indispensable in order to
safeguard those interests if threatened either by the aggressive action
of any other Power, or by disturbances arising in China or Corea, and
necessitating the intervention of either of the High Contracting Parties
for the protection of the lives and property of its subjects.

"If either Great Britain or Japan, in the defence of their respective
interests as above described, should become involved in war with another
Power, the other High Contracting Party will maintain a strict
neutrality, and use its efforts to prevent other Powers from joining in
hostilities against its ally.

"If in the above event any other Power or Powers should join in
hostilities against that ally, the other High Contracting Party will
come to its assistance and will conduct the war in common, and make
peace in mutual agreement with it.

"The High Contracting Parties agree that neither of them will, without
consulting the other, enter into separate arrangements with another
Power to the prejudice of the interests above described.

"Whenever, in the opinion of either Great Britain or Japan, the
above-mentioned interests are in jeopardy, the two Governments will
communicate with one another fully and frankly."

A letter covering the treaty, addressed by the Marquess of Lansdowne to
the British Minister at Tokio, Sir C. Macdonald, explained the fact that
there was to be no disturbance of Chinese or Corean territory: "We have
each of us desired that the integrity and independence of the Chinese
Empire should be preserved, that there should be no disturbance of the
territorial _status quo_ either in China or in the adjoining regions,
that all nations should, within those regions, as well as within the
limits of the Chinese Empire, be afforded equal opportunities for the
development of their commerce and industry, and that peace should not
only be restored, but should, for the future, be maintained. We have
thought it desirable to record in the preamble of that instrument the
main objects of our common policy in the Far East to which I have
already referred, and in the first Article we join in entirely
disclaiming any aggressive tendencies either in China or Corea."

But that stipulation did nothing to safeguard Corea's independence,
which was soon sacrificed to Japanese ambition. There was a widespread
feeling of uneasiness in the British Dominions in the Pacific when this
treaty was announced. At the time Canada was having serious trouble on
her Pacific Coast with Japanese immigrants, and the Canadian Pacific
provinces were anxious to prohibit absolutely the entry of more Japanese
to their territory.[8] Australia in 1901 had made the first great deed
of her new national organisation a law practically prohibiting all
coloured immigration, and making the entry of Japanese colonists
impossible. The Act certainly veiled its hostility to the Asiatic races
by a subterfuge. It was not stated in so many words that black skin,
brown skin, and yellow skin were prohibited from entry, but an
educational standard was set up which might be applied to any immigrant,
but needed to be applied to none. In practice it is never applied to the
decent White but always to the coloured man: and its application is such
that the coloured man can never be sure that his standard of education
will be sufficiently high to satisfy the fastidious sense of culture of
an Australian Customs officer. He may be a learned Baboo, B.A. of
Oxford, and Barrister of the Inner Temple, and yet fail to pass the
Australian Education Test, for the ordeal is to take dictation in any
European language, not necessarily English, but perhaps Russian or
modern Greek. New Zealand, without going so far by her legislation,
shows an equal repugnance to any form of Asiatic immigration.

The "official" view of the British Alliance with Japan, advocated with
some energy, was that it was a benefit to the White Dominions in the
Pacific, for it made them secure against the one aggressive Asiatic
Power. But nevertheless the policy of making the wolf a guardian of the
sheep-fold was questioned in many quarters. The question was asked:
"Presuming a Pacific war in which the United States was the enemy of
Japan?" The answer in the minds of many, in Australia at any rate, and
probably also in Canada and New Zealand, was that in such event the
sympathy, if not the active support, of the British Dominions in the
Pacific would be with the United States, whether Great Britain kept to
her Treaty or not. It was recognised, however, as almost unthinkable
that Great Britain would go to war by the side of Japan against the
American Republic.

Great Britain is very sensitive to the opinions of her Dominions in
these days of the industrious promulgation of Imperialist sentiment in
Great Britain: and a Canadian or an Australian voter--though he has no
vote for the House of Commons--has far more influence on the destinies
of the Empire than his British compeer. The overseas objection to the
Treaty with Japan had its full effect in the British Cabinet, and that
effect was seen in subsequent modifications of the Treaty.

On August 12, 1905, the British-Japanese Treaty was renewed, and the
chief articles of the new treaty were:--

"The Governments of Great Britain and Japan, being desirous of replacing
the agreement concluded between them on the 30th January, 1902, by fresh
stipulations, have agreed upon the following articles, which have for
their object--

"(a) The consolidation and maintenance of the general peace in the
regions of Eastern Asia and of India;

"(b) The preservation of the common interests of all Powers in China by
insuring the independence and integrity of the Chinese Empire and the
principle of equal opportunities for the commerce and industry of all
nations in China;

"(c) The maintenance of the territorial rights of the High Contracting
Parties in the regions of Eastern Asia and of India, and the defence of
their special interests in the said regions:--

"It is agreed that whenever, in the opinion of either Great Britain or
Japan, any of the rights and interests referred to in the preamble of
this Agreement are in jeopardy, the two Governments will communicate
with one another fully and frankly, and will consider in common the
measures which should be taken to safeguard those menaced rights or

"If by reason of unprovoked attack or aggressive action, wherever
arising, on the part of any other Power or Powers, either Contracting
Party should be involved in war in defence of its territorial rights or
special interests mentioned in the preamble of this Agreement, the other
Contracting Party will at once come to the assistance of its ally, and
will conduct the war in common, and make peace in mutual agreement with

"Japan possessing paramount political, military, and economic interests
in Corea, Great Britain recognises the right of Japan to take such
measures of guidance, control, and protection in Corea as she may deem
proper and necessary to safeguard and advance those interests, provided
always that such measures are not contrary to the principle of equal
opportunities for the commerce and industry of all nations.

"Great Britain having a special interest in all that concerns the
security of the Indian frontier, Japan recognises her right to take such
measures in the proximity of that frontier as she may find necessary for
safeguarding her Indian possessions.

"The High Contracting Parties agree that neither of them will, without
consulting the other, enter into separate arrangements with another
Power to the prejudice of the objects described in the preamble of this

"The conditions under which armed assistance shall be afforded by either
Power to the other in the circumstances mentioned in the present
Agreement, and the means by which such assistance is to be made
available, will be arranged by the naval and military authorities of the
Contracting Parties, who will from time to time consult one another
fully and freely upon all questions of mutual interest.

"The present Agreement shall, subject to the provisions of Article VI.,
come into effect immediately after the date of its signature, and remain
in force for ten years from that date."

It will be noted that there is, as regards the general responsibility
under the Treaty, some watering down. One Power is bound to come to the
help of the other Power only by reason of "unprovoked attack or
aggressive action" on the part of another Power. The fiction of
preserving the independence of Corea is abandoned.

On April 3, 1911, a Treaty of Commerce and Navigation was entered into
between Great Britain and Japan. The Japanese Government had revised its
tariff in such a way as to prejudice seriously foreign trade. It was
announced in Japan that certain nations would have the benefit of
"most-favoured nation" rates under the new tariff, but that Great
Britain would not have that benefit, since, being a Free Trade country,
she was able to give no concessions in return. Then the diplomatic
Treaty of 1905 was used by the British Government as an argument for
securing more favoured treatment for British merchants. If the Trade
Treaty of 1911 is closely studied, it will be found that the trade
advantages given to Japan by Great Britain, in return for some real
concessions on the part of Japan to Great Britain, are wholly illusory.
It is difficult to see how they could have been otherwise, since a Free
Trade country can give nothing better than Free Trade to another
country. But Great Britain, a good deal out of conceit at this time with
the diplomatic value of the Treaty of 1905, did not hesitate to use it
as a means of securing some trade benefits. The effect on Japanese
public opinion was not favourable. But the diplomatic position had so
changed that that was not considered a serious circumstance in Great

Two articles of the British-Japanese Trade Treaty of 1911 should be
quoted to show the mutual acceptance by the two Powers of the
independent right of the British overseas Dominions to restrict or
prohibit Japanese immigration:

"The subjects of each of the High Contracting Parties shall have full
liberty to enter, travel and reside in the territories of the other,
and, conforming themselves to the laws of the country,

"They shall in all that relates to travel and residence be placed in all
respects on the same footing as native subjects.

"They shall have the right, equally with native subjects, to carry on
their commerce and manufacture, and to trade in all kinds of merchandise
of lawful commerce, either in person or by agents, singly or in
partnerships with foreigners or native subjects.

"They shall in all that relates to the pursuit of their industries,
callings, professions, and educational studies be placed in all respects
on the same footing as the subjects or citizens of the most favoured

But Article 26 makes this reservation:

"The stipulations of the present Treaty shall not be applicable to any
of His Britannic Majesty's Dominions, Colonies, Possessions, or
Protectorates beyond the seas, unless notice of adhesion shall have been
given on behalf of any such Dominion, Colony, Possession, or
Protectorate by His Britannic Majesty's Representative at Tokio before
the expiration of two years from the date of the exchange of the
ratifications of the present Treaty."

A few weeks after the conclusion of this Trade Treaty the
British-Japanese Alliance was renewed on terms which practically "draw
its sting" and abolish the contingency of a British-Japanese war against
the United States, or against any Power with which Great Britain makes
an Arbitration Treaty. The preamble of the British-Japanese Treaty now

"The Government of Great Britain and the Government of Japan, having in
view the important changes which have taken place in the situation
since the conclusion of the Anglo-Japanese Agreement of the 12th August,
1905, and believing that a revision of that Agreement responding to such
changes would contribute to the general stability and repose, have
agreed upon the following stipulations to replace the Agreement above
mentioned, such stipulations having the same object as the said
Agreement, namely:

"(a) The consolidation and maintenance of the general peace in the
regions of Eastern Asia and of India.

"(b) The preservation of the common interests of all Powers in China by
insuring the independence and integrity of the Chinese Empire, and the
principle of equal opportunities for the commerce and industry of all
nations in China.

"(c) The maintenance of the territorial rights of the High Contracting
Parties in the regions of Eastern Asia and of India and the defence of
their special interests in the said regions."

The chief clauses are:

"If, by reason of unprovoked attack or aggressive action wherever
arising on the part of any Power or Powers, either High Contracting
Party should be involved in war in defence of its territorial rights or
special interests mentioned in the preamble of this Agreement, the other
High Contracting Party will at once come to the assistance of its ally
and will conduct the war in common and make peace in mutual agreement
with it.

"The High Contracting Parties agree that neither of them will, without
consulting the other, enter into separate arrangements with another
Power to the prejudice of the objects described in the preamble of this

"Should either High Contracting Party conclude a Treaty of General
Arbitration with a third Power, it is agreed that nothing in this
Agreement shall entail upon such Contracting Party an obligation to go
to war with the Power with whom such Treaty of Arbitration is in force.

"The present Agreement shall come into effect immediately after the date
of its signature, and remain in force for ten years from that date."

It will be recognised that there is very little left now of the very
thorough Treaty of 1902. It does not suit Japanese foreign policy that
this fact should be accentuated, and public opinion in that country has
been generally muzzled. Nevertheless, some candid opinions on the
subject have been published in the Japanese press. Thus the Osaka
_Mainichi_ last January, discussing evidently a Japanese disappointment
at the failure of Great Britain to join Japan in some move against
Russia, claimed that "for all practical purposes, the Anglo-Japanese
Alliance ended with its revision last July." In the opinion of the
_Mainichi_, "the Alliance no longer furnishes any guarantee for the
preservation of Chinese integrity. So far from Japan and Great Britain
taking, as the terms of the Alliance provide, joint action to protect
the rights and interests of the two nations when the same are
threatened, no measures have been taken at all." According to the
_Mainichi_, "England is no longer faithful to the principle of the
Alliance as regards the territorial integrity of China, and it is even
rumoured that she has intentions on Tibet, similar to those of Russia in
Mongolia. Consequently it is a matter of supreme importance to know
whether the Alliance is to be considered as still alive or not, and the
Japanese Government would do well to make some explicit declaration on
the subject."

This view was supported by the Tokio _Nichi-Nichi_, which wrote: "For a
long time now the feeling between Great Britain and Japan has been
undergoing a change. There is no concealing the fact that it is no
longer what it was before the Russo-Japanese War. At the time of the
Tariff the friendly relations were only maintained by concessions from
the side of the Japanese. The revision of the terms of the Alliance has
reduced it from a real value to this country to a merely nominal value.
The friendship which has been steadily growing between Great Britain and
Russia is something to be watched. The action of Great Britain in the
China trouble has not been true to the Alliance. The tacit consent given
to Russian action in Mongolia is a violation of the integrity of China,
and on top of it we are informed that Great Britain at the right moment
will adopt similar steps in Tibet."

The British-Japanese Treaty, for as much as it stands for, is the only
definite treaty affecting big issues in the Pacific to-day. To attempt
to discuss all possible treaties and combinations in the Pacific would
be, of course, impossible. But some notice must be given of the recent
remarkable hint of the possibilities of an "understanding" between
Germany and the United States on Pacific questions. In February Mr Knox,
the United States Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, communicated
in a formal Note to Germany some views on Pacific questions. Commenting
on this, the _New York Sun_, whose correspondent at Washington is a
great deal in the confidence of the Government, commented: "The
significance of Mr Knox's Note as a warning will, it is thought, be
clearly seen by the other Powers. The fact that the writing and
publication of Mr Knox's Note are the result of an understanding between
Germany and the United States will greatly add to the force of the
document. The other Powers, according to the Washington view, will
hesitate long before embarking upon the policy of advancing their
special interests by taking advantage of China's distress when Germany
and the United States are standing together before the world in
opposition to any such move."

An "understanding" between Germany and the United States to act together
on the Asiatic side of the Pacific littoral would have its strategic
importance in the fact that German power in the Atlantic would help to
lessen certain risks consequent upon the United States concentrating her
naval forces in the Pacific.

Another reasonably possible combination should be noted. As one of three
partners in the Triple Entente, Great Britain has an understanding with
Russia, which might possibly affect one day the position in the Pacific.
It is a fact rumoured among European diplomats that France, with the
idea of maintaining the Triple Entente as a basis of future
world-action, has urged Russia to build a Pacific Fleet, abandoning
naval expansion in the Baltic and the Black Sea. With a strong Pacific
Fleet Russia would certainly be a much more valuable friend to France
and to Great Britain than at present. But that is "in the air." The
actual position is that Great Britain and Russia are on such excellent
terms that they can fish amicably together to-day in the very disturbed
waters of Persia, and are possible future partners in the Pacific.

Those who consider a British-Russian alliance as impossible, forget the
history of centuries and remember only that of a generation. Anciently
the Russian and the Englishman were the best of friends, and Russian aid
was often of very material use to Great Britain. It was in the eleventh
century that King Canute established English naval power in the Baltic,
and thus opened up a great trade with the Russian town of Novgorod. He
helped the young Russian nation much in so doing. After Canute's death
this trade with Russia languished for five centuries. But in the
sixteenth century it was revived, and some centuries later it was said
of this revival: "The discovery of a maritime intercourse with the Great
Empire of Russia, and the consequent extension of commerce and
navigation, is justly regarded by historians as the first dawn of the
wealth and naval preponderance of England." Some indeed hold that the
great exploits of the Elizabethan era of British seamanship would not
have been possible without the maritime supplies--cordage, canvas,
tallow, spars and salt beef--obtained from Russia.

The benefits of the friendship were not all on one side. In the
seventeenth century England helped Russia with arms, supplies and troops
against the Poles. In 1747 England paid Russia to obtain an army of
37,000 troops which was employed in Holland. Later it was agreed that
Russia was to keep ready, on the frontiers of Livonia, an army of 47,000
troops beside forty galleys to be used in the defence of Hanover, for
England, if needed. At a later date Catherine the Great of Russia was
appealed to for 20,000 troops for service against the revolted American
colonies, an appeal which she very wisely rejected. In the wars against
Napoleon, Great Britain and Russia were joint chiefs of the European
coalition, and a Russian Fleet was stationed in British waters doing
good service at the time of the Mutiny of the Nore. A British-Russian
understanding, in short, has been the rule rather than the exception in
European politics since the fifteenth century.

An instinct of friendliness between Great Britain and the United States,
though expressed in no formal bonds, is yet a great force in the
Pacific. There has been at least one occasion on which an American force
in the Pacific has gone to the help of a British naval force engaging an
Asiatic enemy. There are various more or less authentic stories showing
the instinct of the armed forces of both nations to fraternise.
Sometimes it is the American, sometimes the British sailor who is
accused of breaking international law in his bias for the men of his own
speech and race. It would not be wise to record incidents, which were
irregular if they ever happened, and which, therefore, had best be
forgotten. But the fact of the American man-of-war's-men in Apia
Harbour, Samoa, finding time during their own rush to destruction at the
hands of a hurricane to cheer a British warship steaming out to safety,
is authentic, and can be cited without any harm as one instance of the
instinctive friendship of the two peoples in the Pacific of common blood
and common language.


[8] This proposal has now (1912) been revived in the face of the
disquieting uprise of Chinese power. It is an indication of the stubborn
resolve of the White populations to prohibit Asiatic immigration.



The poetry that is latent in modern science, still awaiting its singer,
shows in the story of the Panama Canal. Nature fought the great French
engineer, de Lesseps, on that narrow peninsula, and conquered him. His
project for uniting the waterways of the Pacific and the Atlantic was
defeated. But not by hills or distances. Nature's chief means of
resistance to science was the mobilising of her armies of subtle
poisoners. The microbes of malaria, yellow fever, of other diseases of
the tropical marshes, fell upon the canal workers. The mortality was
frightful. Coolie workers, according to one calculation, had a year's
probability of life when they took to work on the canal. The
superintendents and engineers of the White Race went to their tasks as
soldiers go to a forlorn hope. Finally the forces of disease conquered.
The French project for cutting a canal through the isthmus of Panama was
abandoned, having ruined the majority of those who had subscribed to its
funds, having killed the majority of those who had given to it of their

The United States having decided to take over the responsibility for a
task of such advantage to the world's civilisation, gave to it at the
outset the benefit of a scientific consideration touched with
imagination. There were hills to be levelled, ditches to be dug,
water-courses to be tamed, locks to be built. All that was clear enough.
But how to secure the safety of the workers? Nature's defenders, though
fed fat with victory, were still eager, relentless for new victims.
Science said that to build a canal wholesome working conditions must be
created: yellow fever and malaria abolished. Science also told how. The
massacre of the mosquitoes of the isthmus was the first task in

The mosquitoes, the disseminators of the deadly tropical diseases, were
attacked in their breeding grounds, and their larvæ easily destroyed by
putting a film of oil over the surface of the shallow waters in which
they lived. The oil smothered the life in the larvæ, and they perished
before they had fully developed. The insect fortunately has no great
range of flight. Its life is short, and it cannot pass far from its
birthplace. Herodotus tells how Egyptians avoided mosquitoes by sleeping
in high towers. The natives of Papua escape them by building their huts
in the forks of great trees. If the mosquitoes are effectively
exterminated within a certain area, there is certainty of future
immunity from them within that area if the marshes, the pools--the
stagnant waters generally on its boundaries--are thereafter guarded
during the hatching season against the chance of mosquito larvæ coming
to winged life. At Suez scientists had found this all out. Science
conquered the mosquito in Panama as it had been conquered elsewhere, and
the entrenchments of Nature crumbled away. Henceforth it was a matter of
rock-cutters, steam shovels and explosives, the A B C of modern
knowledge. But the mosquito put up a stubborn fight. Driven out of the
marshes, it found a refuge in the cisterns of houses, even in the
holy-water founts of churches. Every bit of stagnant water within the
isthmus area had to be protected against the chance of mosquitoes coming
to life before the campaign was successful. To-day the isthmus of Panama
is by no means unhealthy, and the work of canal-cutting progresses so
well that Mr President Taft was able to announce recently the
probability of it being opened two years before the due date. That
brings the canal as a realised fact right into the present.

Some few facts regarding this engineering work. It will cost about
£70,000,000. The total length of the canal to be made from sea to sea is
50-1/2 miles, with a maximum width on the bottom of 1000 feet. The land
excavation is 40-1/2 miles of cutting through rock, sand and clay,
leaving 10 miles of channel to be deepened to reach the sea at either
end. Some of the other construction dimensions are these:--

  Locks, usable length                                1,000 feet.
  Locks, usable width                                   110 feet.
  Gatun Lake, area                              164 square miles.
  Gatun Lake, channel depth                        84 to 45 feet.
  Excavation, estimated total            174,666,594 cubic yards.
  Concrete, total estimated for canal      5,000,000 cubic yards.

The Gatun is the greatest rock and earth-fill dam ever attempted.
Forming Gatun Lake by impounding the waters of the Chagres and other
streams, it will be nearly 1-1/2 miles long, nearly 1/2 mile wide at its
base, about 400 feet wide at the water surface, about 100 feet wide at
the top. Its crest, as planned, will be at an elevation of 115 feet
above mean sea-level, or 30 feet above the normal level of the lake. The
interior of the dam is being formed of a natural mixture of sand and
clay placed between two large masses of rock, and miscellaneous material
obtained from steam-shovel excavation at various points along the canal.

Gatun Lake will cover an area of 164 square miles, with a depth in the
ship channel varying from 85 to 45 feet. The necessity for this
artificial lake is because of the rugged hills of Panama. A sea-level
canal would have been a financial impossibility. By a lock system
lifting vessels up to Gatun Lake (a height of 85 feet), an immense
amount of excavation was saved. Incidentally the alarm was allayed of
that ingenious speculator who foretold that the Gulf Stream would take a
new path through the Panama Canal and desert the West Coast of Europe,
on the climate of which it has so profound an influence. When the canal
was opened England was to revert to her "natural climate"--that of
Labrador! But since the canal will not be a sea-level one, it cannot of
course have the slightest effect on ocean currents. The amount of
Pacific and Atlantic water which will be mutually exchanged by its
agency each year will be insignificant.

The Panama Canal, when opened, will be exclusively United States
property; it will be fortified and defended by the United States army
and navy: and it will probably in time of peace be used to help United
States trade, and in time of war to help the United States arms. All
those conclusions are natural, since the United States has found the
money for the work, and claims under the Monroe doctrine an exclusive
hegemony of the American continent south of the Canadian border. But
originally it was thought that the canal would be, in a sense, an
international one. Later the idea was entertained, and actually
embodied, in a treaty between Great Britain and the United States that
whilst "the United States should have the exclusive right of providing
for the regulation and management of the canal," it should not be
fortified. But the Treaty of 1902 between Great Britain and the United
States abrogated that, and provided for the "neutralisation" of the
canal. It was stipulated that "the United States adopts, as the basis of
the neutralisation of such ship canal, the following rules,
substantially as embodied in the Convention of Constantinople, signed
the 28th October 1888, for the free navigation of the Suez Canal." The
Rules provide that the canal shall be open to the vessels of commerce
and war of all nations on terms of equality, so that there shall be no
discrimination against any nation or its citizens or subjects in respect
to conditions or charges.

Rule 2 states: "The canal shall never be blockaded, nor shall any right
of war be exercised, nor any act of hostility be committed within it.
The United States, however, shall be at liberty to maintain such
military police along the canal as may be necessary to protect it
against lawlessness and disorder." The third rule prohibits vessels of
war of a belligerent from revictualling or taking on stores in the canal
except so far as may be strictly necessary. Under Rule 4 belligerents
may not embark or disembark troops, munitions of war, or warlike
materials, except in case of accidental hindrance in transit, "and in
that case the transit shall be resumed with all possible despatch.
Waters adjacent to the canal within three marine miles of either end are
considered as part of the canal. Vessels of war of a belligerent are not
permitted to remain in those waters longer than twenty-four hours,
except in case of distress." The last rule makes the plant,
establishments, buildings, and the works necessary for the construction,
maintenance and operation of the canal part of the canal, "and in time
of war, as in time of peace, they shall enjoy complete immunity from
attack or injury by belligerents, and from acts calculated to impair
their usefulness as part of the canal."

But it seems clear that anything, stated or implied, in that Treaty,
which is calculated to limit the sovereign rights of the United States
in regard to the canal, will be allowed to be forgotten, for the canal
has lately, since the question of the control of the Pacific came to the
front, shown to the United States even more as a military than as an
industrial necessity. In war time the United States will use the canal
so that she may mobilise her Fleet in either ocean. Already she has
passed estimates amounting to £3,000,000 for installing 14-inch guns,
searchlights, and submarine mines at either entrance. She is also
establishing a naval base at Cuba to guard the Atlantic entrance, and
designs yet another base at the Galapagos Islands. At present those
islands belong to Ecuador, and Ecuador objects to parting with them. But
it is probable that a way will be found out of that difficulty, for it
is clear that a strong United States naval base must be established on
the Pacific as well as the Atlantic threshold of the canal. This base,
with another at Cuba, would meet the objection I saw raised by an
American Admiral last year when he said: "In the event of the United
States being at war with a first-class naval Power, I doubt very much
whether the canal would be used once hostilities were declared. I assume
that our opponent would have so disposed his Fleets as to engage ours in
the Atlantic or Pacific coasts according as circumstances might
require, and that if we were stupid or careless enough to be caught
napping with our vessels scattered, no person in authority with any
sense would risk sending our ships through the canal. Our enemy would
lie in wait for us and pick off our vessels as they entered or emerged
from the canal, and every advantage would be on their side and against
us. This, of course, is on the assumption that the opposing force would
be at least as powerful as our own. If we had preponderating strength
conditions would be different, but if the navies were evenly matched it
would be hazardous in the extreme to use the canal. Nor would the
fortifications be of much help to us. So long as our ships remained
within the waters of the canal zone they would, of course, be under the
protection of the guns of the forts, but as soon as they came on the
high seas, where they would have to come if they were to be of any use,
the fortifications would be of little benefit to them, and little injury
to the enemy."

But when to the actual fortification of the canal is added the provision
of a strong advanced base near each entrance, this criticism falls to
the ground. Between those advanced bases would be "American water," and
on either base a portion of the American Fleet could hold an enemy in
check until the mobilisation of the whole Fleet.

The world must make up its mind to the fact that the Panama Canal is
intended by the United States as a means of securing her dominance in
the Pacific, without leaving her Atlantic coast too bare of protection
in the event of a great war. Great Britain is the only Power with any
shadow of a claim to object, and her claim would be founded on treaties
and arrangements which she has either abrogated or allowed to fall into
oblivion. Probably it will never be put forward. By a course of
negotiation, which, for steadiness of purpose and complete concealment
of that purpose until the right time came for disclosure, might be a
pattern to the most effective fighting despotism, the American democracy
has surmounted all obstacles of diplomacy in Panama just as the
obstacles of disease and distance were surmounted. The reluctance of a
disorderly sister Republic to grant the territory for the canal was
overcome by adding a beneficent one to its numerous useless revolutions.
The jealousy of Europe was first soothed and ultimately defied. It is
safe to venture the opinion that the reluctance of Ecuador to part with
the Galapagos will also be overcome. Then from New York to Pekin will
stretch a series of American naval bases--Cuba, Panama, the Galapagos,
Hawaii, the Philippines.

The intention, announced on some authority, of the United States to use
the canal in times of peace as a tariff weapon for the furthering of
American trade may arouse some protest, but it is difficult to see how
such a protest can have any effect. The United States will be able to
reply that it is her canal, bought with her own money, and that it is
her right, therefore, to do with it as she pleases. In a special message
to Congress at the end of 1911, Mr Taft urged the necessity for the
establishment of preferential rates for American shipping passing
through the Panama Canal. He cited the practice of foreign Governments
in subsidising their merchant vessels, and declared that an equivalent
remission of canal tolls in favour of American commerce could not be
held to be discrimination. The message went on: "Mr Taft does not
believe that it would be the best policy wholly to remit the tolls for
domestic commerce for reasons purely fiscal. He desires to make the
canal sufficiently profitable to meet the debt amassed for its
construction, and to pay the interest upon it. On the other hand, he
wishes to encourage American commerce between the Atlantic and the
Pacific, especially in so far as it will insure the effectiveness of the
canal as a competitor with the trans-Continental railways." The
President concluded, therefore, that some experimentation in tolls would
be necessary before rates could be adjusted properly, or the burden
which American shipping could equitably bear could be definitely
ascertained. He hinted at the desirability of entrusting such
experimentation to the executive rather than to the legislative branch
of the Government.

In plain language, the United States Government asked for a free hand to
shape rates for the use of the Panama Canal so that American shipping
interests could be promoted. The shipping affected would not be merely
from one American port to another, but between American and foreign
countries. By the present shipping laws American "coastal trade" i.e.
trade between one American port and another, even if one of the ports be
Manila or Honolulu, is closely safeguarded for American bottoms by a
rigid system of Protection.

A _Daily Telegraph_ correspondent, writing from New York to London at
the time of Mr President Taft's message, described the trend of American
public opinion which was shown by the changing of the registry of the
Red Star liners _Kroonland_ and _Finland_ from Belgian to American.
"This morning Captain Bradshaw, an American, assumed command, and the
ceremony of hauling down the foreign flag and hoisting the Stars and
Stripes took place. The reasons for the change are not announced, but it
is said that the approaching completion of the Panama Canal has
something to do with it, and shipping circles here declare that the
change of registry presages the entry of the _Kroonland_ and her sister
ship the _Finland_ into the American coast trade between Pacific and
Atlantic ports, _via_ the Panama Canal. It is expected that a heavy
subsidy will be given to American steamships by the United States
Government carrying mails from the Atlantic to the Pacific _via_ Panama,
and it is generally believed that the owners of the _Kroonland_ and the
_Finland_ have this in mind."

Clearly the United States, having expended £70,000,000 directly, and a
great deal indirectly, on the Panama Canal, intends to put it to some
profitable use, both in war time and in peace time. Naval supremacy in
the Pacific in war time, industrial supremacy in peace time--those are
the benefits which she expects to derive.



That our civilisation is based on conditions of warring struggle is
shown by the fact that even matters of production and industry are
discussed in terms of conflict. The "war of tariffs," the "struggle for
markets," the "defence of trade," the "protection of our work"--these
are every-day current phrases; and the problem of the Pacific as it
presents itself to the statesmen of some countries has little concern
with navies or armies, but almost exclusively comes as an industrial
question: "Will our national interests be affected adversely by the
cheap competition of Asiatic labour, either working on its home
territory or migrating to our own land, now that the peoples of the
Pacific are being drawn into the affairs of the world?"

Viewed in the light of abstract logic, it seems the quaintest of
paradoxes that the very act of production of the comforts and
necessities of life can be considered, under any circumstances, a
hostile one. Viewed in the light of the actual living facts of the day,
it is one of the clearest of truths that a nation and a race may be
attacked and dragged down through its industries, and that national
greatness is lost and won in destructive competition in the workshops of
the world. That industry itself may be turned to bad account is another
proof that an age, in which there is much talk of peace, is still
governed in the main by the ideas of warfare. The other day, to Dr Hall
Edwards, known as the "X-ray Martyr," a grateful nation gave a pension
of £120 a year after he had had his second hand amputated. He had given
practically his life ("for you do take my life when you take the means
whereby I live") to Humanity. As truly as any martyr who died for a
religious idea or a political principle, or for the rescue of another in
danger, he had earned the blessing decreed to whomsoever gives up his
life for his brother. And he was awarded a pension of £120 a year to
comfort the remainder of his maimed existence! At the same time that Dr
Hall Edwards was awarded his pension, an engineer thought he had
discovered a new principle in ballistics. His bold and daring mind
soared above the puny guns by which a man can hardly dare to hope to
kill a score of other men at a distance of five miles. He dreamed of an
electric catapult which "could fire shells at the rate of thousands per
minute from London to Paris, and even further." The invention would have
raised the potential homicidal power of man a thousandfold. And the
inventor asked--and, without a doubt, if he had proved his weapon to be
what he said, would have got--£1,000,000. The invention did not justify
at the time the claims made on its behalf. But a new method of
destruction which did, could command its million pounds with certainty
from almost any civilised government in the world.

In industry also the greatest fortunes await those who can extend their
markets by destroying the markets of their rivals, and nations aim at
increasing their prosperity by driving other nations out of a home or a
neutral market. There is thus a definitely destructive side to the work
of production; and some foresee in the future an Asiatic victory over
the White Races, not effected directly by force of arms but by
destructive industrial competition which would sap away the foundations
of White power. How far that danger is real and how far illusory is a
matter worthy of examination.

At the outset the theoretical possibility of such a development must be
admitted, though the practical danger will be found to be not serious,
since it can be met by simple precautions. There are several familiar
instances in European history of a nation being defeated first in the
industrial or commercial arena, and then, as an inevitable sequel,
falling behind in the rivalry of war fleets and armies. In the Pacific
there may be seen some facts illustrating the process. The Malay
Peninsula, for instance, is becoming rapidly a Chinese instead of a
Malay Colony of Great Britain. In the old days the Malays, instinctively
hostile to the superior industry and superior trading skill of the
Chinese, kept out Chinese immigrants at the point of the kris. With the
British overlordship the Chinaman has a fair field, and he peacefully
penetrates the peninsula, ousting the original inhabitants. In Fiji,
again, Hindoo coolies have been imported by the sugar-planters to take
the place of the capricious Fijian worker. Superior industry and
superior trading skill tell, and the future fate of Fiji is to be an
Indian colony with White overseers, the Fijian race vanishing.

In both these instances, however, the dispossessed race is a coloured
one. Could a White Race be ousted from a land in the same way, presuming
that the White Race is superior and not inferior? Without doubt, yes, if
the coloured race were allowed ingress, for they would instil into the
veins of the White community the same subtle poison as would a slave
class. The people of every land which comes into close contact with the
Asiatic peoples of the West Pacific littoral know this, and in all the
White communities of the ocean there is a jealousy and fear of Asiatic
colonisation. The British colonies in the Pacific, in particular, are
determined not to admit the Asiatic races within their border. That
determination was ascribed by a British Colonial Secretary of a past era
as due to "an industrial reason and a trade union reason, the
determination that a country having been won by the efforts and the
struggle of a White Race and rescued from barbarism should not be made
the ground of competition by men who had not been engaged in that
struggle." But I prefer to think that the reason lies deeper than the
fear of cheaper labour. It springs rather from the consciousness that a
higher race cannot live side by side with a lower race and preserve its
national type. If the labouring classes have always been in the van of
anti-Asiatic movements in the White colonies of the Pacific, it is
because the labouring classes have come first into contact with the
evils of Asiatic colonisation. It is now some years since I first put
forward as the real basis of the "White Australia" policy "the instinct
against race-mixture which Nature has implanted in man to promote her
work of evolution." That view was quoted by Mr Richard Jebb in his
valuable _Studies in Colonial Nationalism_, and at once it won some
acceptance in Great Britain which before had been inclined to be hostile
to the idea of "White Australia." Subsequently in a paper before the
Royal Society of Arts Mr Jebb took occasion to say:

"Let me enter a protest against the still popular fallacy that the
Pacific attitude (_i.e._ in regard to Asiatic labour) is dictated merely
by the selfish insistence of well-organised and rapacious labour. Two
circumstances tell decisively against this view. One is that responsible
local representatives, not dependent upon labour suffrages, invariably
argue for restriction or exclusion on the higher social and political
grounds in relation to which the labour question is subsidiary, although
essential. The second evidence is the modern adherence to the
restriction movement of nearly all Australasians and an increasing
number of Canadians, who are not 'in politics' and whose material
interests in many cases are opposed to the extravagant demands of
labour. Their insight contrasts favourably, I think, with that perverse
body of opinion, to be found in all countries, which instinctively
opposes some policy of enormous national importance lest the immediate
advantage should accrue to persons not thought to deserve the benefit."

But whilst the industrial reason is not the only reason, nor even the
chief reason, against Asiatic immigration into a White colony, there is,
of course, a special objection on the part of the industrial classes to
such immigration. It is for that reason that there has been in all the
White settlements of the Pacific a small section, angered by what they
considered to be the exorbitant demands of the workers, anxious to
enlist the help of Asiatic labour for the quick development of new
territories, and in some cases this section has had its way to an
extent. Some of the Canadian railways were built with the help of
Chinese labour: and Western Canada has that fact chiefly to thank for
her coloured race troubles to-day--not so serious as those of the United
States with the Negroes, but still not negligible altogether. In
Australia it was at one time proposed to introduce Chinese as workers in
the pastoral industry: and one monstrous proposal was that Chinese men
should be mated with Kanaka women in the South Sea Islands to breed
slave labour for sheep stations and farms in Australia.

Fortunately that was frustrated, as were all other plans of Asiatic
immigration, and as soon as the Australian colonists had been allowed
the right to manage their own affairs they made a first use of their
power by passing stringent laws against Asiatic immigrations. A typical
Act was that passed in 1888 in New South Wales. By that Act it was
provided that no ship should bring Chinese immigrants to a greater
number than one for every 300 tons of cargo measurement (thus a ship of
3000 tons could not bring more than ten Chinese): and each Chinaman on
landing had to pay a poll tax of £100. Chinese could not claim
naturalisation rights and could not engage in gold-mining without
permission. Since then the Australian Commonwealth has passed a law
which absolutely prohibits coloured immigration, under the subterfuge of
an Education Test. New Zealand shares with Australia a policy of
rigorous exclusion of Asiatics. In Canada the desire lately evinced of
the Western people to exclude Asiatics altogether has been thwarted, so
far, by the political predominance of the Eastern states, which have not
had a first-hand knowledge of the evils following upon Asiatic
immigration, and have vetoed the attempts of British Columbia to bar out
the objectionable colonists. But some measures of exclusion have been
adopted enforcing landing fees on Chinese; and, by treaty, limiting the
number of Japanese permitted to enter. Further rights of exclusion are
still sought. In the United States there have been from time to time
rigorous rules for the exclusion of Chinese, sometimes effected by
statute, sometimes by agreement with China, and at present Chinese
immigration is forbidden. The influx of Japanese is also prevented under
a treaty with Japan.

The industrial position in the Pacific is thus governed largely by the
fact that in all the White settlements on its borders there are more or
less complete safeguards against competition by Asiatic labour on the
White man's territory: and that the tendency is to make these safeguards
more stringent rather than to relax them. Nothing short of a war in the
Pacific, giving an Asiatic Power control of its waters, would allow
Asiatics to become local competitors in the labour markets of those
White settlements.

But debarred from colonisation the Asiatic has still two other chances
of competition:

(1) In the home markets of his White rivals in the Pacific;

(2) In such neutral markets as are open to his goods on equal terms with

The first chance can be swept away almost completely by hostile tariffs,
which it is in the power of any of the White nations to impose. There
are no Free Trade ideas in the Pacific; the United States, Canada, New
Zealand, and Australia, all alike protect their home markets against any
destructive Asiatic competition. If Japanese boots or Chinese steel
work began to invade the markets of Australia or America to any serious
extent, the case would be met at once by a hostile tariff revision.

The second chance, open to the Asiatic industrial, that of competing
with White labour in neutral markets, of cutting into the export trade
of his rivals, is greater. But even it is being constantly limited by
the tendency to-day which makes for the linking up of various nations
into groups for mutual benefit in matters of trade; and which also makes
for the gradual absorption of independent markets into the sphere of
influence of one or other group. Some students of tariff subjects
foresee the day when a nation will rely for export markets on dominions
actually under its sway and on a strictly limited entrance to foreign
markets paid for by reciprocal concessions. They foresee the whole world
divided up into a limited number of "spheres of influence" and no areas
left for free competition of traders of rival nations. Under such
circumstances a Power would have free and full entry only into those
territories actually under its sway. Into other markets its entry would
be restricted by local national considerations and also by the interests
of the Imperial system having dominion there.

Present facts certainly point to the dwindling of neutral markets. An
effort is constantly made by "open-door" agreements to keep new markets
from being monopolised by any one Power, and great nations have shown
their appreciation of the importance of keeping some markets "open" by
intimations of their willingness to fight for the "open door" in some
quarter or other of the world. Nevertheless doors continue to be shut
and events continue to trend towards an industrial position matching the
military position, a world dominated in various spheres by great Powers
as jealous for their trading rights as for their territorial rights.

Imagining such a position, the Asiatic industrial influence in the
Pacific would depend strictly on the Asiatic military and naval
influence. For the present, however, there are many neutral markets, and
in these, without a doubt, Asiatic production is beginning to oust
European production to some extent. In the textile industries,
particularly, Asiatic production, using European machinery, is
noticeably cheaper than European. Yet, withal, the cheapness of Asiatic
labour is exaggerated a great deal by many economists. It will be found
on close examination that whilst the Asiatic wage rate is very low, the
efficiency rate is low in almost equal proportion. Some effective
comparisons are possible from the actual experience of Asiatic and other
coloured labour. In the mining industry, for instance, Chinese labour,
the most patient, industrious, tractable and efficient form of Asiatic
labour, does not stand comparison with White industry. In Australia
Chinese labour has been largely employed in the Northern Territory
mines: it has not proved economical.[9] The Broken Hill (silver) and
Kalgoorlie (gold) mines in the same continent, worked exclusively by
highly-paid White labour, show better results as regards economy of
working than the Rand (South Africa) gold mines with Kaffir or with
Chinese coolie labour.

The Chinaman has a great reputation as an agriculturist, and at
vegetable-growing he seems able to hold his own in competition with
White labour, for he can follow in that a patient and laborious routine
with success. In no other form of agriculture does he compete
successfully with the White farmer. In Australia, for example, where the
Chinese are still established as market-gardeners, they fail at all
other sorts of farming, and it is an accepted fact that a Chinese tiller
will ruin orchard land in a very short time if it comes under his

In navvying work and in dock-labouring work the Asiatic coolie is not
really economical. To see four coolies struggling to carry one frozen
carcase of mutton off a steamer at Durban, with a fifth coolie to
oversee and help the voluble discussion which usually accompanies coolie
work; and to contrast the unloading of the same cargo by White labour,
with one man one carcase the rule, is to understand why low wages do not
always mean low labour costs.

When any particular problem of production has been reduced to a
practically mechanical process, when the need of initiative, of thought,
of keen attention, has been eliminated, Asiatic work can compete
successfully with White work, though the individual Asiatic worker will
not, even then, be capable of the same rate of production as the
individual White worker. But in most domains of human industry the
Asiatic worker, in spite of his very much lower initial cost, cannot
compete with the European. Intelligent labour is still the cheapest
ultimately in most callings, even though its rate of pay be very much
higher. In practical experience it has often been found that a White
worker can do more whilst working eight hours a day than whilst working
ten hours, on account of the superior quality of his work when he has
better opportunities for rest and recreation. The same considerations
apply, with greater force, to comparisons between White and "coloured"

A fact of importance in the discussion of this point is the effect of
impatient White labour in encouraging, of patient Asiatic labour in
discouraging, the invention and use of machinery. The White worker is
always seeking to simplify his tasks, to find a less onerous way. (He
discovers, for instance, that the wheel-barrow saves porterage.) Now
that coloured labour is being banished from cotton-fields and
sugar-brakes, we hear talk of machines which will pick cotton and trash

The industrial position in the Pacific as regards White and "coloured"
labour is then to-day this: Owing to the efforts, sometimes expressed in
terms of legal enactment, sometimes of riot and disorder,[2] of the
British race colonists in the Pacific, the settlements of Australia and
New Zealand have been kept almost entirely free from Asiatic colonists:
and the Pacific slopes of the United States and Canada have been but
little subjected to the racial taint. Asiatic rivalry in the industrial
sphere must therefore be directed from Asiatic territory. The goods, not
the labour, must be exported; and the goods can be met with hostile
tariffs just as the labour is met with Exclusion Acts. In neutral
markets the products of Asiatic labour can compete with some success
with the products of the labour of the White communities, but not with
that overwhelming success which an examination of comparative wage rates
would suggest. Under "open door" conditions Asiatic peoples could kill
many White industries in the Pacific; but "open door" conditions could
only be enforced by a successful war. Such a war, of course, would be
followed by the sweeping away of immigration restrictions as well as
goods restrictions.

There is another, the Asiatic, side to the question. Without a doubt the
Asiatic territories in the Pacific will not continue to offer rich
prizes for European Powers seeking trade advantages through setting up
"spheres of influence." Since Japan won recognition as a nation she has
framed her tariffs to suit herself. In the earlier stages of her
industrial progress she imported articles, learned to copy them, and
then imposed a prohibitive tariff on their importation. Various kinds of
machinery were next copied and their importation stopped. China may be
expected to follow the same plan. Europe and America may not expect to
make profits out of exploiting her development. A frank recognition of
this fact would conduce to peace in the Pacific. If it can be agreed
that neither as regards her territory nor her markets is China to be
served up as the prize of successful dominance of the Pacific, one of
the great promptings to warfare there would disappear. "Asia for the
Asiatics" is a just policy, and would probably prove a wise one.

In discussing the position of Asiatic labour in the Pacific I have taken
a view which will dissatisfy some alarmists who cite the fact that the
wage rate for labour in Western Canada and Australia is about 8s. a day,
and in China and Japan about 1s. a day; and conclude therefore that the
Asiatic power in the industrial field is overwhelming. But an
examination of actual working results rather than theoretical
conclusions from a limited range of facts will very much modify that
conclusion. Asiatic labour competition, if allowed liberty of access for
the worker as well as his work, would undoubtedly drag down the White
communities of the Pacific. But when the competition is confined to the
work, and the workman is kept at a distance, it is not at all as serious
a matter as some have held, and can always be easily met with tariff
legislation. The most serious blow to European and American
industrialism that Asia could inflict would be an extension of the
Japanese protective system to the Asiatic mainland. Yet that we could
not grumble at; and it would have a compensating advantage in taking
away the temptation to conflict which the rich prize of a suzerainty
over the Chinese market now dangles before the industrial world.

There are now one or two industrial facts of less importance to which
attention may be drawn. The United States, with the completion of the
Panama Canal, will be the greatest industrial Power of the Pacific. Her
manufacturing interests are grouped nearer to the east than the west
coast--partly because of the position of her coalfields,--and the fact
has hitherto stood in the way of her seaport trade to the Pacific. With
the opening of the canal her eastern ports will find the route to the
Pacific reduced greatly, and they will come into closer touch with the
western side of South America, with Asia, and with the British
communities in the South Pacific. The perfect organisation of the
industrial machinery of the United States will give her a position of
superiority analogous to that which Great Britain had in the Atlantic at
the dawn of the era of steam and steel.

Western Canada is a possible great industrial factor of the future when
she learns to utilise the tremendous water power of the Selkirks and
Rockies. The Canadian people have the ambition to become manufacturers,
and already they satisfy the home demand for many lines of manufactured
goods, and have established an export trade in manufactures worth about
£7,000,000 a year. Australia, too, aspires to be a manufacturing
country, and though she has not risen yet to the dignity of being an
exporter of manufactures to any considerable extent, the valuation of
her production from manufactures (_i.e._ value added in process of
manufacture) is some £180,000,000 a year.

To sum up: in neutral markets of the Pacific (_i.e._ markets in which
the goods of all nations can compete on even terms) the Asiatic producer
(the Japanese and the Indian at present, the Chinese later) will be
formidable competitors in some lines, notably textiles. But the United
States should be the leading industrial Power. British competition for
Pacific markets will come not only from the Mother Country but from the
Dominions of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Neutral markets will,
however, tend to be absorbed in the spheres of influence of rival Powers
striving for markets as well as for territory. A position approaching
monopoly of the markets of the Pacific could only be reached as the
result of a campaign of arms.


[9] The Northern Territory has been the one part of Australia where
coloured labour has been obtainable in practically any quantity for
mining; yet it is the part of Australia where the experience of
mine-owners has been generally the most disastrous. In 1906 the
production amounted to £126,000; in the last four years, according to a
report just furnished by the Chief Warden (1911), it has got down to
£60,000 a year, and is now shrivelling so fast that the whole industry
is threatened. "The values of the properties worked in the past are not
accountable for this depressed condition," says the Chief Warden, "for
there is every reason for the belief that, if the mineral wealth here
were exploited, it would compare favourably with that of any of the
States; but the depression has been caused chiefly through the
pernicious system of mining that has been carried out in the past, and
the wasteful expenditure in most instances of the capital forthcoming
for development."

[2] The Australian Labour organ, _The Worker_, boasted (Oct. 22, 1908):
"When the law was not sufficient to guard race purity, 'selfish' Labour
risked its life and liberty to go beyond the law, and to show, as was
shown at another time in California, that the White Race would not
tolerate Asiatic colonisation. The Chinese Exclusion Acts in various
states of Australia were thus the monuments, not of the politicians who
passed them into law, but of the courage of the workers who were
willing--as the Eureka miners were willing--to sacrifice everything in
the cause of a clean, free Australia."



Soundly considered, any great strategical problem is a matter of:

1. Naval and military strength; rarely exercised separately but usually
in combination.

2. Disposition of fortified stations and of bases of supplies.

3. The economic and political conditions of countries concerned.

Such phrases as the "Blue-water School of Strategy" are either
misleading, inasmuch as they give an incorrect impression of the ideas
of the people described as belonging to such a school, wrongly
representing them as considering naval strength, and naval strength
alone, in a problem of attack and defence; or else they rightly describe
an altogether incorrect conception of strategy. It will be found on
examination of any great typical struggle between nations that all three
matters I have mentioned have usually entered into the final
determination of the issue; that superior military or naval force has
often been countered by superior disposition of fortresses, fitting
stations, and supply bases: that sometimes clear superiority both in
armaments and disposition of armaments has been countered by greater
financial and industrial resources and more resolute national character.

On all questions of strategy the Napoleonic wars will provide leading
cases, for Napoleon brought to his campaigns the full range of
weapons--military, naval, political, economic; and his early victories
were won as much by the audaciously new reading he gave to the politics
of war as to his skill in military strategy and in tactics. It would be
a fascinating task to imagine a Napoleon setting his mind to a
consideration of the strategy of the Pacific with all its vast problems.
But since to give to "strategy" its properly wide definition would be to
deal again in this chapter with many matters already fully discussed, I
propose to touch upon it here in a much narrower sense, and suggest
certain of the more immediate strategical problems, particularly in
regard to the disposition of fortified stations and bases of supplies.

A glance at the map will show that the British Empire has at the present
moment an enormous strategical superiority over any other Power in the
Pacific. That Empire is established on both flanks, in positions with
strong and safe harbours for fleets, and with great tracts of fertile
country for recruiting local military forces and providing garrisons.
(For the time being I put aside political limitations and consider only
military and naval possibilities unhampered by any restrictions.) On
the eastern flank of the Pacific Ocean is the Columbian province of
Canada provided with several fine harbours and allowing of the
construction of an ideal naval base behind the shelter of Vancouver
Island. The coastal waters and the coastal rivers alike make possible
great fisheries, and consequently are good nurseries for seamen. The
coastal territory has supplies of coal, of timber, of oil. The
hinterland is rich pastoral, agricultural, and mineral country capable
of carrying an enormous population and, therefore, of providing a great

Considered in relation to its neighbours in the Pacific, Canada is
strategically quite safe except as regards attack from one quarter--the
United States. A Russian attack upon Canada, for instance, would be
strategically hopeless (I presume some equality of force), since a
Russian Fleet would have to cross the Pacific and meet the Canadian
Fleet where the Canadians chose, or else batter a fortified coast with
the Canadian Fleet sheltering in some port on a flank waiting a chance
to attack. The same remark applies to an attack from Japan, from China,
or from a South American nation. As regards an attack from the United
States, the position, of course, is different. But even in that case the
strategical position of Canada would be at least not inferior to that of
the enemy (apart from superiority of numbers), since that enemy would be
liable to diverting attacks from Great Britain in the Atlantic and from
Australia and New Zealand in the Pacific (whose forces would, however,
have to subdue the Philippines and the Hawaiian Islands before they
could safely approach the North American coast). An attack by the United
States on Canada is, however, not within the bounds of present
probability, and need not be discussed.

The very great importance of Canada to the British position in the
Pacific cannot, however, be too strongly impressed. Canada holds the
right flank of the Pacific Ocean, and that flank rests upon the main
British strength concentrated in the Atlantic. With the loss of Canada
British mastery in the Pacific would be impossible. To make the
strategical position of Western Canada (naturally very strong) secure
there is needed--

(a) A British Pacific Fleet strong enough to meet any enemy in the
ocean, and so stationed as to be capable of concentrating quickly either
at a base near Vancouver on the outbreak of hostilities, or in the rear
of any Fleet attacking the coast.

(b) A greater population in Western Canada with an army (not necessarily
of Regulars) capable of defending Canadian territory against a landing

On the west flank of the Pacific Great Britain is established at
Wei-hai-wei, Hong Kong, the Straits Settlements, Borneo, New Guinea,
Australia, New Zealand, and various small islands. There are here
possibilities of enormous strength and several points of grave danger.

At the outset let us consider the continental position of the British
Empire on the west flank of the Pacific. The occupation of India gives
to the British Power at once a great position and a great
responsibility. Occupation of India, presuming the loyalty of the
majority of the native inhabitants--a presumption which seems to become
more and more reasonable with the passage of time--gives great material
resources and command of a vast population of good fighting men. It is
admitted, however, that these native troops require a certain
"stiffening" of White troops before taking the field. To provide that
stiffening is the greatest single task of the British Regular army.
Strategically, the transfer from Great Britain to India of a large
number of soldiers to leaven the native forces is not an ideal system.
The distance between the source of supply and the field of operations is
so great that in peace it is necessary to have a larger force than would
be necessary if that distance were reduced, and in war the repairing of
wastage would be a matter of some difficulty. Further, the British
soldier, coming from a very different climate, suffers a great deal from
sickness in India. A more economical and effective system, if that were
found to be politically possible, would be to strengthen the White
garrison of India in part from Australia and New Zealand and South
Africa in case of war.

The defence of India has to be considered in the light of--

(a) An attack from Japan or China based on a Pan-Asiatic movement.

(b) Internal sedition.

(c) An attack from Russia through Persia.

(d) An attack from Germany allied with Turkey by way of the Persian

The two former are the more immediate dangers. But on the whole, India
is a far greater source of strength than of weakness. She makes the
British Empire a great military power on the mainland of Asia, and she
can contribute materially to the strength of the Pacific naval forces.

Passing from India we find the British Empire in possession of several
very important strategical positions on or near the coast of Asia,
Wei-hai-wei and Hong Kong being the advance stations in the north, and
Singapore (the favoured meeting-place of the Pacific squadron of the
British Navy) being a well-situated central point. A British Pacific
Fleet making Singapore its chief base would be in the best position to
dominate the western littoral of the ocean. South of Singapore the large
settlements (Australia and New Zealand) are friendly. From the north any
possible enemy would be best watched, best met, from a Singapore base.
That base would be central for aid from India and South Africa; and it
would also be the best point of departure for a Pacific Fleet finding it
necessary to rendezvous on the American flank of the ocean.

This is a convenient point at which to call attention to one grave
strategical weakness of the British Empire position in the Pacific--the
lack of a fortified coaling station near to the centre of the ocean.
Between Hong Kong and Vancouver there is no fortified coaling station.
There are rumours, as I write, of the want being met by the
fortification of Fanning Island, at present the landing-place of the
Pacific cable between Vancouver and Norfolk Island. Fanning Island is
not an ideal station either by position or natural advantages. But it
would be better than nothing.

The strategical position of Australia and New Zealand comes next for
consideration. Looking to the future, these British Dominions, which can
be grouped under the one title, Australasia, will probably form the most
important national element in the South Pacific. Considered at present,
Australia must be a source of the gravest anxiety strategically, for it
has within its vast, and everywhere insufficiently populated, area one
great tract, the Northern Territory, which is practically empty, and
which contains to-day twice as many Asiatics as Whites. Embracing
335,000,000 acres, the Northern Territory possesses several splendid
rivers, in the inland portion a great artesian water supply, and a wide
diversity of land and of climate. On the uplands is a warm, dry,
exhilarating area, not very rich in soil, but suitable for pastoral
occupation, and giving great promise of mineral wealth. On the lowlands,
with a climate which is sub-tropical to tropical, but, on account of the
wide spread of the gum tree, is practically nowhere dangerously
malarial, every agricultural industry is possible, from dairy-farming
and maize-growing to the cultivation of coffee, sugar, sago, hemp, and
spices. Almost every expert who has explored the Territory has been
struck with its possibilities. Mr Dashwood, the former Government
resident, considered the "area of land suitable for tropical agriculture
enormous." Mr Sydney Kidman, the great cattle breeder, reported on the
land about Herbert River as "ideal cattle country." A dozen other
authorities acclaim the pastoral possibilities of the uplands. The
probability of vast tin, copper and gold deposits is certified to by
every geological explorer.

The Northern Territory thus offers a tempting prize for an Asiatic Power
seeking new outlets for its population. Yet, with all its advantages the
Territory remains empty. It is known that the Government of Great
Britain is profoundly anxious for its settlement. It is an open gate
through which an Asiatic invader may occupy Australia. It is an empty
land which we do not "effectively occupy," and therefore is, according
to the theories of international law, open to colonisation by some other

Further, the Northern Territory is specially vulnerable, because an
enemy landing there could find horses, oxen, pasturage, timber, some
metals, a good soil, plenty of water, any number of easily defensible
harbours--in short, all the raw material of war. And to prevent a
landing there is nothing. The local White population is nil,
practically; the fortifications are nil; the chances of an Australian
force ever getting there to dislodge an enemy, nil.

An ingenious Australian romance (_The Commonwealth Crisis_, by C. H.
Kirness), recently published, imagines a "colonising invasion" of
Australia by Japan. A certain Thomas Burt and his friend, while on a
hunting trip in the Northern Territory, observe the landing of bodies of
Japanese troops at Junction Bay. They ride to the south-west to bring
the news to Port Darwin, the small White settlement in the Territory.
For some years preceding Japan had contemplated a secret "peaceful
invasion" of the Northern Territory. The project was planned with great
care. First a huge military colony was organised at Formosa, and the men
trained in agriculture. Later, the men were supplied with wives. Three
months were allowed to elapse, and the men were transported secretly to
the Northern Territory. Quite 6000 "colonists" had been thus landed
before "White Australia" was able to take any action. Japan, when
concealment is no longer possible, officially states through its
Ambassador in London that, quite without authority from the Mikado, a
private colonising organisation had settled a body of Japanese in the
Northern Territory. The Mikado regretted this, and was willing that
these subjects should disavow their Japanese citizenship and swear
devotion to the British Flag. A deputation from the Japanese colony in
the Northern Territory then arrives at Port Darwin to offer its
allegiance, and to ask that schools should be established in the new

From that point the story develops to the downfall of "White Australia"
so far as all the north of the Continent is concerned. That romance was,
though in some of its details fantastic, in its main idea possible. It
was one of many efforts in warning. Such warnings seem to be taking
effect now, for the Commonwealth Government is moving at last to
colonise the Northern Territory, and to build a railway which will bring
it into touch with the more populous portions of the Continent. A
scientific expedition was sent recently to investigate the conditions of
the Territory as regards productiveness and health. The preliminary
report of that expedition (presented to the Australian Parliament
October 1911) was generally favourable. It enlarged on the great
capacity of the Territory for production, and was optimistic about the
climatic conditions:

"Bearing in mind that the country was visited at the time of year when
the climate was most suitable for Europeans, the general health was
remarkably good. The families of the second generation examined showed
no signs of physical deterioration. There are none of the tropical
diseases, such as malaria and dysentery, endemic in the settlements;
and, as long as the necessary hygienic precautions are observed, there
is no reason to anticipate their appearance.

"There are, at present, men who have spent from three to four decades in
the Territory, and every one of them compares favourably, both as
regards physique and energy, with men of similar ages elsewhere.

"The healthiest and strongest are those, both men and women, who take
regular open-air exercises both in the relatively cool and in the hot

"Life in the back country, provided the ordinary precautions necessary
in tropical parts are taken, is decidedly healthy. The summer months are
undoubtedly trying, but the winter months, when at night-time the
temperature falls below 40 degrees F., afford recuperation from the
excessive damp heat of the summer. In addition, the open-air life is in
itself a great safeguard against enervation and physical deterioration."

That bears out the views of those who are in the best position to know
the Northern Territory of Australia. Clearly, there are no obstacles to
its White settlement except such as arise from the apathy and
carelessness of the governments concerned. But with the strategical
question of populating the Northern Territory is bound up the other idea
of populating Australia itself. In 1904, the Government of New South
Wales, one of the Australian states, alarmed by the fall of the
birth-rate, appointed a Royal Commission to inquire into the cause. One
thing made clear by the investigations of the Commission was "that a
very large section of the population keeps down the birth-rate so far
as it can, and that the limit of birth-suppression is defined by the
limit of knowledge on the subject." That was practically the main
conclusion in the Commissioners' report. It probably did not need a
Commission of Inquiry to tell the social observer of Australia so much.
That the decreasing birth-rate in the Commonwealth was not primarily due
to any physical degeneracy of the people, had long been the conviction
of all who had had the opportunity and the desire to make the most
cursory inquiry into the subject. Not lack of capacity, but lack of
willingness to undertake parental responsibility, was the cause of the
Australian movement towards sterility. Coming to a conclusion as to
"why" was thus an easy task in investigating the dwindling birth-rate.
It was quite clear that the Australian cradle did not fill, mainly
because the Australian parent preferred to have a very small family.

The evil--it is an evil, for there could be no better, no more welcome
immigrants to any country than those coming on the wings of the
stork--does not affect Australia alone, but is observable in almost
every civilised country. It has successfully defied one of the strongest
of natural sentiments. Every sane adult is by instinct desirous of being
a parent. But instinct seems to weaken with civilisation and its
accompanying artificiality of life. If, on an essentially vital point,
it is to become so weak as to be ineffective, and is to be replaced by
no ethical or other motive working towards the same end, then
civilisation will involve extinction. That is the melancholy conclusion
which some pessimists even now come to, pointing to the fact that the
White races of the earth, as a whole, despite the still prolific Slav
and German, show a tendency to dwindle.

Alarm at such a conclusion may yet prove in itself a remedy. Already
there is a general agreement that for the community's good it is well
that there should be a higher birth-rate, but, so far, the general
agreement lacks particular application. With a further recognition of
the fate to which artificially-secured sterility points, there may be an
acuter alarm, which will convert the individual not only to good belief,
but to good practice. What is wanted is a generally accepted conviction
that childlessness is either unfortunate or disgraceful, and that
anything but a moderately large family is a condition calling for
apology. In Australia that is particularly wanted. There are there--in a
new country with plenty of room for many millions yet--none of the
excuses which can be held to justify "small families" in more thickly
populated lands. It is satisfactory to note that since the Birth-rate
Commission aroused the public mind on the subject in Australia, there
has been a distinct betterment of the birth-rate; and there has been an
end to the old objection to immigration. "Empty Australia" is filling up
somewhat more rapidly now; but the process is still far too slow, from
the point of view of strategical safety.

With Australia, including the Northern Territory, populated and
defended, the strategical position of the British Empire on the Asiatic
flank of the Pacific Ocean could be organised on a sound basis. An
Imperial Fleet, contributed to by the Mother Country, by Australia, New
Zealand, South Africa, India, and the Crown Colonies, having a rallying
point at Singapore, could hold the Indian Ocean (which is to the Pacific
what the Mediterranean is to the Atlantic) as a "British lake," and this
powerful naval force would straddle the centre of the western littoral
of the ocean, keeping secure the British communities in the south from
the Asiatic communities in the north, and ready to respond to a call
from Canada. On the western, as on the eastern flank, there is present
all the "raw material" for Fleets and armies--great supplies of coal,
oil, timber, metals, fecund fishing grounds, and enormous areas of
agricultural and pastoral territory.

When the strategical position of the United States in the Pacific comes
to be examined, it is found to be for the moment one full of anxiety.
The Power which may, five years hence, have undisputed hegemony of the
ocean, holds a difficult position there to-day. The map will show that
if the United States had had no expansion ideas at all, in the Pacific
or elsewhere, national safety demanded that she should stretch out her
arm to take in the Hawaiian Islands. This group, if held by an enemy,
would be as a sword pointed to the heart of the Pacific States of the
Republic: but held by the United States it is a buckler against any
enemy from south or west. A foe approaching the United States Pacific
coast would inevitably seek to occupy first the Hawaiian Islands and use
them as a base: and just as surely would not dare to pass those islands
leaving there an American Fleet. With Honolulu Harbour strongly
fortified and sheltering a Fleet of any real fighting strength, the
Pacific coast of the United States is safe from invasion by sea
(invasion by land from Canada hardly needs to be considered; nor from
Mexico). At the present time Honolulu is in the process of being
fortified rather than is fortified: and a powerful American Fleet awaits
the completion of the Panama Canal before it can enter the Pacific
without leaving the Atlantic coast of the Republic unduly exposed.

The Philippine Islands, too, are a source of anxiety rather than of
strength at present. When the Panama Canal has been completed and
Honolulu fortified, and the Philippines mark the terminal point of an
American Fleet patrol, their strategical weight will count in the other
scale, for they will then give the American Power a strong vedette post
in the waters of a possible enemy. Any attack from the Pacific on the
United States would in prudence have to be preceded by the reduction of
the Philippines, or at least their close investment. Yet the temporary
loss of the group would inflict no great disadvantage on the American
plan of campaign. Thus the enemy could not afford to leave the
Philippines alone, and yet would gain no decisive advantage from the
sacrifices necessary to secure them. In the case of a war in which the
United States was acting on the offensive against an Asiatic Power, the
Philippines would be of great value as an advanced base.

The ultimate strategical position of the United States in the Pacific
cannot be forecasted until there is a clearer indication of how far she
proposes to carry a policy of overseas expansion. But in the near future
it can be seen that she will keep on the high seas one great Fleet, its
central rallying point being probably Cuba, with the Galapagos Islands,
San Francisco, Honolulu and Manila as the Pacific bases. At present the
Galapagos belong to Ecuador, and Ecuador does not seem disposed to
"lease" them to the United States. But that difficulty will probably be
overcome, since the United States must have an advance guard to protect
the Panama Canal on the Pacific as well as on the Atlantic side. Viewed
from a purely defensive standpoint, such a strategical position is sound
and courageous. If offensive action is contemplated, on the Asiatic
mainland for example, a military force far greater than that existing
to-day in the United States must be created.

Japan has consolidated a sound strategical position by the annexation of
Corea, Russian naval power having ceased to exist in the Pacific. Japan
now holds the Sea of Japan as her own Narrow Water. The possibility of a
hostile China making a sea attack can be viewed without dread, for
naturally and artificially the Japanese naval position is very strong.
Holding the Sea of Japan as securely as she does, Japan may also
consider that her land frontier on the mainland is more accessible to
her bases than to the bases of any possible enemy.

Russia has been harshly criticised for the conception of naval strategy
which gave her one Fleet in the Baltic, another in the Black Sea, and a
third in the Pacific. But she was forced by her geographical position
into a "straggle" policy. It is extremely unlikely that she will now
adopt the policy, recommended to her in some quarters, of concentrating
naval strength in the Pacific: though, should the _Entente_ with Great
Britain develop into an actual triple alliance between Great Britain,
France and Russia, that concentration is just possible. It would have an
important effect on the strategical position in the Pacific: but is too
unlikely a contingency to call for any discussion. The same may be said
in regard to any possibility of a great development of power in the
Pacific by Germany or France.

The interest of the strategical position in the Pacific thus centres in
the rivalry, or friendly emulation, between the United States and the
British Empire. Without any very clear indications of a conscious
purpose, the British Empire has blundered into a strategical position
which is rich in possibilities of strength and has but two glaring
weaknesses, the absence of a Mid-Pacific fortress and the emptiness of
the Northern Territory of Australia. With a very clear idea of what she
is about, the United States has prepared for a thoroughly scientific
siege of the Pacific, but she has not the same wealth of natural
material as has the British Empire.



The essential superiority of a White Race over a Coloured Race may
fairly be accepted as a "first principle" in any discussion of world
politics. There are numberless facts to be gathered from 2500 years of
history to justify that faith, and there is lacking as yet any great
body of evidence to support the other idea, that modern conditions of
warfare and of industry at last have so changed the factors in human
greatness that mere numbers and imitative faculty can outweigh the
superior intellectual capacity and originating genius characteristic of
the European peoples. Nevertheless it must be admitted that the
conditions, in warfare and in industry, of life to-day as compared with
life in past centuries, have increased the value of numbers and of a
faculty of blind obedience, and have proportionately decreased the
relative value of individual character. An Asiatic army to-day is
relatively better fitted to cope with a European army; an Asiatic
factory is relatively more efficient.

It is necessary, therefore, to call to aid all the reassuring records of
history if one would keep a serene faith that the future of the Pacific,
and with it the future of the world, is not destined to be dominated by
the Asiatic rather than by the European. Japan with her fertile people
and sterile soil has done so much since she discovered that the test
imposed on a people by Christian civilisation is based on their powers
of destruction, that there is good reason for the alarm expressed by
many thinkers (with the German Emperor as their leader) as to "the
Yellow Peril." China, too, awaking now after the slumber of centuries
and grasping at the full equipment of a modern nation, reinforces that
alarm. It is conceivable that White civilisation may be for a while
worsted and driven from some of its strongholds by the arms which it has
taught the Coloured Races to use. "Asia for the Asiatics," may be a
battle-cry raised in the future not without avail. But in time European
superiority must again assert itself.

There are many pessimists who foretell the doom of the White Races
coming from a sterility self-imposed for the sake of better ease. They
see in every advance of comfort a cause of further weakness, and they
picture luxury as rapidly corroding the supports of our society. But it
is comforting to recall that every age has had the same gloomy critics,
and the Golden Age has always been represented in the past by the
pessimists of the present. For myself, I am daring enough to think that
the White Races of to-day are neither enervated nor decadent: that in
physique, in good health and in sense of public duty they are improving
rather than deteriorating; and that the Europe of next century will be
more happy, more vigorous and more sane than the Europe of to-day. There
_was_ a time for the joy of pessimists, but it is a past time, that
dismal past century when the industrial epoch rushed on man all
unawares, when the clattering machine came to sweep away handicrafts,
and the new economic idea of human beings as "hands" affected
poisonously all social relations. It was as though a cumbrous wain,
well-built for its slow and sedate rumbling, had suddenly been hitched
to a rushing steam engine. There were disturbances, clatterings,
groanings, and creakings. The period of adjustment was a painful one.
But it is passing. Meliorism is the justifiable faith of the future.

The future of the Pacific, I hold then, is with the White Races. At the
best, the Asiatic can hope to hold his own continent in security. Japan
had the chance of securing a temporary dominance after the war with
Russia, and at one time was said to have been on the verge of a struggle
with the United States, as an assertion of that dominance. But the cloud
passed over. With the opening of the Panama Canal, now a matter only of
months, the opportunity of Japan will have finally passed. With the
gradual re-establishment of British naval power in the ocean, a
re-establishment which will come through the agency of Australia,
Canada, and New Zealand, if not through the Home Country, and which will
be "anti-Asiatic" in purpose, a further veto will be put on any
aggressive ambitions on the part of an Asiatic Power. The statesmen of
Japan, indeed, seem to recognise that she has had her day of greatest
power, and must be content for the future to be tolerated in her present
position as one of the "Powers" forming the great council of the
foremost nations. But in considering Japan, allowance must always be
made for the danger of the people getting out of the hands of the
oligarchy which rules them. The Japanese people, fed fat on praise of
their own prowess, may one day force a mad course on statesmen asked to
choose between civil and foreign war. Such a war would be doomed to
failure for financial if for no other reasons. But it might leave a deep
stain of blood on the Pacific.

China--a Federal Republic, and rid of the Manchus if present appearances
(1912) are not belied--will have no aggressive ambitions for some years
to come. She may insist, and rightly insist, on more honourable
treatment from foreign nations. But it is not likely that she will set
Fleets ranging over the Pacific in search of conquests. By the time that
China has come to a warlike mood--if she does ever come--the White Races
will be fully equipped for any struggle. The greatest Asiatic peril, so
far as warlike forces are concerned, is of a Japanese-Chinese alliance:
and the chance of that is slight, for the two peoples are not
sympathetic. It will be noted that the very first official paper of the
nascent Chinese Republic is a letter of complaint to the Japanese

If it is agreed that the Pacific will fall, as the Mediterranean did, as
the Atlantic did, to the rule of the White Man, the next step is to
consider, which people? There is, in addition to much evidence, the
temptation of race-pride to suggest that of all the European peoples the
Anglo-Celtic (controlling the British Empire and the United States) is
inherently the best equipped for world dominance. But that is not nearly
so sure as is the superiority of the White over the Coloured Races. The
Latin peoples--Italians, Portuguese, Spaniards--have in their day won to
lofty greatness. The French--in the main Latin, but with a large element
of Celtic and some element of Teutonic blood--were supreme in the world
for many generations, and are not exhausted to-day. There is not an
incident of Anglo-Saxon history; either of fighting against tremendous
odds and winning a victory which the stars in their courses seemed to
forbid; or of making disaster glorious by a Spartan death; or of pushing
out on some frail plank into an unknown sea--which cannot be matched by
some incident equally noble from the records of the Latin peoples or the
French people. The Teutons are only now making their bid for mastery:
the Slavs may have a great future. The future dominance of Europe may be
for any one of the European peoples.

But the position in the Pacific can be simplified for the present by
the elimination of all the European Powers but two. Spain and Portugal
have had their day there, and have passed away. Neither France, Germany,
Austria nor Italy can venture any great force from Europe. Nor is any
one of them strongly established in the Pacific. Great Britain would be
content with the Atlantic but that her overseas Empire gives her duties
and advantages in the new ocean. The Pacific possessions of the British
Empire were unsought. But they will be held. The other European Power in
the Pacific is Russia, which has been checked but not destroyed there.
That the supremacy of Europe--at present held, so far as any enterprises
beyond its seas are concerned, by Great Britain--may pass to other hands
is not impossible; and that would affect, of course, the position in the
Pacific. Speculation on that point, however, is outside the scope of
this book, which has attempted to deal with the Pacific conditions of
the present and immediate future.

On the facts there must be a further elimination of European Powers in
the Pacific, since Russia has no naval forces there and no design of
creating such forces. There is at present a natural bewilderment in the
Russian mind as a consequence of the recent war with Japan. That
struggle destroyed her power in Europe as well as in Asia, and the
European balance must be restored first. During the next five
years--which will be the critical years--Russia will not count in the
Pacific except as the useful ally of some powerful naval nation--either
of Japan, the United States or Great Britain.

Great Britain is thus left as the sole European Power capable of
independent effort in the Pacific. Clearly the rivalry for the dominance
of the ocean lies between her and the United States. To discuss that
rivalry is to discuss the real problem of the Pacific. It may be done
frankly, I trust, without raising suggestions of unfriendliness. A frank
discussion of the problem, carried out on both sides of the Atlantic,
would be of the greatest value to civilisation. For the position seems
to be that both Powers are preparing to capture the Pacific; that
neither Power can hold it against the other; and that a peaceful
settlement can only be founded on complete mutual understanding.

It is true that if the United States decides "to play a lone hand," she
may win through if all the circumstances are favourable, for she seems
destined to control the resources of all America. It is likely that
within this decade the United States Flag will fly (either as that of
the actually governing or the suzerain Power) over all the territory
south of the Canadian border to the southern bank of the Panama Canal.
Intervention has been threatened once already in Mexico. With any
further disorder it may be carried into effect. The United States cannot
afford to allow the chance of a disorderly force marching down to
destroy £70,000,000 worth of United States property. Central America
has been marked down for a process of peaceful absorption. The treaty
with Honduras (a similar one exists with Nicaragua) shows the method of
this absorption. It provides:

"The Government of Honduras undertakes to make and negotiate a contract
providing for the refunding of its present internal and external debt
and the adjustment and settlement of unliquidated claims for the placing
of its finances upon a sound and stable basis, and for the future
development of the natural and economic resources of that country. The
Governments of the United States and Honduras will take due note of all
the provisions of the said contract when made, and will consult, in
order that all the benefits to Honduras and the security of the loan may
at the same time be assured.

"The loan, which shall be made pursuant to the above undertaking, shall
be secured upon the customs of Honduras, and the Government of Honduras
agrees not to alter the import or export Customs duties, or other
charges affecting the entry, exit, or transit of goods, during the
existence of the loan under the said contract, without consultation and
agreement with the Government of the United States.

"A full and detailed statement of the operations under this contract
shall be submitted by the fiscal agent of the loan to the Department of
State of the United States and to the Minister of Finance of the
Government of Honduras at the expiration of each twelve months, and at
such other times as may be requested by either of the two Governments.

"The Government of Honduras, so long as the loan exists, will appoint
from a list of names to be presented to it by the fiscal agent of the
loan and approved by the President of the United States of America, a
collector-general of Customs, who shall administer the Customs in
accordance with the contract securing said loan, and will give this
official full protection in the exercise of his functions. The
Government of the United States will in turn afford such protection as
it may find necessary."

Under the terms of these loan conventions the independence of Honduras
and Nicaragua dwindles to nothing. The purpose of the arrangements was
stated by Mr President Taft in his message to Congress: "Now that the
linking of the oceans by the Isthmian Canal is nearing assured
realisation, the conservation of stable conditions in the adjacent
countries becomes a still more pressing need, and all that the United
States has hitherto done in that direction is amply justified, if there
were no other consideration, by the one fact that this country has
acquired such vast interest in that quarter as to demand every effort on
its part to make solid and durable the tranquillity of the neighbouring

"Solid and durable tranquillity" means in effect United States control.
From the control of Central America to that of South America is a big
step, but not an impossible one; and the United States already claims
some form of suzerainty over the Latin-American peoples there. It
insists upon giving them protection against Europe, whether they wish it
or not, and under certain circumstances would exercise a right of veto
over their foreign policy. The United States also is engaged in
promoting through the Pan-American Bureau a policy of American
continental unity. This Bureau was the outcome of the Pan-American
Conference convened by Mr Blaine in 1890. The general object of the
Bureau "is not only to develop friendship, commerce, and trade, but to
promote close relations, better acquaintance, and more intimate
association along economic, intellectual, educational and social lines,
as well as political and material lines, among the American Republics."
"The Bureau for commercial purposes," its Director, Mr Barrett, reports,
"is in touch in both North and South America, on the one hand with
manufacturers, merchants, exporters, and importers, doing all it can to
facilitate the exchange and building up of trade among the American
nations, and on the other hand with University and College Presidents,
professors, and students, writers, newspaper men, scientists, and
travellers, providing them with a large variety of information that will
increase their interests in the different American nations." The Bureau
publishes handbooks and reports on the various countries containing
information relating to their commercial development and tariffs.

There will be held this year (1912) at Washington a Pan-American
Conference on trade, organised by the Bureau, "to awaken the commercial
organisations, representative business men, and the general public of
both North and South America to an appreciation of the possibilities of
Pan-American commerce, and the necessity of preparing for the opening of
the Panama Canal." "The Conference," says the official announcement,
"will have a novel feature in that it will consider the exchange of
trade--imports as well as exports--and the opportunities not only of the
United States to extend the sale of her products in Latin America, but
of Latin America to sell her products in the United States, for only
upon the basis of reciprocal exchange of trade can a permanent large
commerce and lasting good relations be built up between the United
States and her twenty sister American Republics. Heretofore all
discussions and meetings have considered only the export field, with a
corresponding unfortunate effect on public opinion in Latin America, and
her attitude towards the efforts of the United States to increase her
commerce with that important part of the world. Another special feature
will be a careful consideration, from the standpoint of the business
interests of all the American countries interested in the Panama Canal,
of what should be done to get ready for greater exchange of trade
through that waterway, and to gain practical advantages to their
commerce from the day it is opened."

The policy of Pan-America may one day come into effect, and the United
States Power command the resources of all America except Canada. (That
Canada will ever willingly come under her suzerainty seems now little
likely.) But from Cape Horn to the Gulf of St Lawrence is an Empire of
mighty resources, great enough to sate the ambition of any Power, but
yet not forbidding the ambition to make it the base for further

Yet, withal, the United States cannot rely confidently on an unchecked
career of prosperity. She may have her troubles. Indeed, she has her
troubles. No American of to-day professes to know a solution of the
negro problem. "There are two ways out of the difficulty," said one
American grimly; "to kill all the negroes, and to deport all the
negroes; and neither is humanly possible." To allow them to be absorbed
by intermarriage with the White population is unthinkable, and would, in
a generation or two, drag the United States down to the level of a
larger Hayti. A settlement of the black question will one day, sooner or
later, absorb the American mind for some time to the exclusion of all
else. Neither the acquisition of territories with great coloured
populations, nor the extension of suzerainty over half-breed countries
will do anything to simplify that problem.

There is also a possible social difficulty to be faced by the United
States. The present differences between rich and poor are too extreme to
be safe. Too many of the rich despise the poor on the ground that to be
poor is to be a failure: too many of the poor hate the rich with a
wolfish hatred as successful bandits. The quick growth of material
prosperity has cloaked over this class feeling. When there were good
crumbs for everybody the too-great wealth of the rich was not so
obvious. But the time comes when the United States is no longer a Tom
Tiddler's ground where everybody can pick up something: and the rivalry
between those who have too much and those who have too little begins to
show nakedly.

In short, the United States, justified as she is to keep a superb
confidence in her own resources, might find a policy of hostile rivalry
to the British Power in the Pacific an impossible one to carry through,
for it would not be wise statesmanship on her part to presume that her
future history will be, at home and abroad, an uninterrupted course of

There is no need to presume that hostile rivalry. On the other hand,
there is no wisdom in following blindly a policy of drift which may lead
to that rivalry. The question of the future of the Pacific narrows down
to this: Will two great Powers, sprung from the same race, take
advantage of a common tongue to talk out frankly, honestly, their aims
and purpose so that they may arrive at a common understanding?

There are some obstacles to such an understanding. The first is American
diplomacy, which, whilst truthful to the point of brusqueness, is
strangely reluctant to avow its real objects, for the reason, I think,
that it often acts without admitting even its own mind into confidence.
The boy who makes his way to the unguarded apple orchard does not admit
to himself that he is after apples. He professes to like the scenery in
that direction. American diplomacy acts in the same way. It would have
been impossible, for instance, to have obtained from the American
Government ten years ago a confidential declaration, in a friendly way,
of the Pacific policy which is now announced. Yet it should have been
quite plain to the American mind after the seizure of the Philippines
and the fortification of Hawaii, if the American mind would have
consented to examine into itself. Now, it is not possible for two great
nations to preserve a mutual friendship without a mutual confidence.

Another obstacle to a perfect British-American understanding is that
British diplomacy is always at its worst in dealing with the United
States. That combination of firmness with politeness which is used in
European relations is abandoned for a policy of gush when dealing with
America. Claims for a particular consideration founded on relationship
are made which are sometimes a little resented, sometimes a little
ridiculed. British diplomats do not "keep their dignity" well in
negotiating with the United States. They are so obsessed with the
feeling that to drift into bad terms with the great English-speaking
Republic would be calamitous, that they give a suspicion sometimes of
truckling. There would be a better feeling if relationship were not so
much insisted upon and reliance were placed instead on a mutual respect
for power and on a community of purpose in most quarters of the globe.
Meekness does not sit well on the British manner, and often the
American's view of "relationship talk" is that it is intended as a
prelude to inducing him into a bad bargain.

It should always be the aim of the leaders of American and British
public opinion to encourage friendship between the two nations. But it
is not wise to be for ever insisting that, because of their blood
relationship, a serious quarrel between them is impossible. True, a
struggle between Great Britain and the United States would have all the
horrors of a civil war, but even civil wars happen; and it is human
nature that relatives should sometimes let bickering, not intended at
the outset to be serious, drift into open rupture. The sentimental talk
founded, as it were, on the idea that the United States and Great
Britain are married and must hold together "for better or for worse," is

When Pacific questions come up for discussion in the near future, there
is likely, however, to be a modification in the old British methods of
diplomacy, for the Dominions of Canada, Australia and New Zealand must
be allowed to take part in the discussions; and Australia and New
Zealand have a certain impatient Imperialism on which I have remarked
before. Their attitude in foreign affairs appears as almost truculent to
European ideas of diplomacy. Probably Canada will show the same spirit,
for it is the spirit of youth in nationhood, with its superb
self-confidence still lacking the sobering effects of experience.

It is a mistaken idea, though an idea generally held in some quarters,
that the British Dominions in the Pacific are more sympathetic with
American than with British ideas. The contrary is the case. Where there
are points of difference between the Anglo-Celtic race in Great Britain
and in the United States, the British Dominions lean to their Mother
Country. Their progressive democracy is better satisfied with the
conditions under the shadow of a Throne, which has nothing of tyranny
and little of privilege, than with those offering under a Republic whose
freedom is tempered a good deal with plutocratic influences. "To be
exactly opposite to everything which is known as 'American'--that is the
ideal of Australian democracy," said a responsible statesman of the
Commonwealth. The statement was put strongly so as to arrest attention;
but it contained a germ of truth. In spite of the theoretical
Republicanism of a majority of the Australian people, their practical
decisions would almost always favour the British rather than the
American political system.

The fervid welcome recently given in the Pacific to the Fleet of
American battleships which circumnavigated the world, gave rise to some
misconceptions. American press correspondents with the Fleet generally
formed the idea that Australia in particular was ready to fall into the
arms of the United States at the first advance. But that welcome was in
part simply the expression of a warm feeling of hospitality for visitors
of a kindred race. For the rest, it was an expression of gratitude for
the reassurance which the American Fleet gave that a White Race was
determined to be a Power in the Pacific. Great Britain had just renewed
her treaty with Japan, which had defeated Russia, and this treaty left
the Japanese Fleet as the guardian of the British interests in the
ocean. To the Australian mind such guardianship was worse than useless.
If it were ever a question between accepting the guardianship of the
United States--with all its implied obligations--and modifying their
anti-Asiatic policy, Australia, Canada and New Zealand would, without a
doubt, accept the first alternative. But they would very much prefer
that the British Power should be the guardian of their safety,
especially a British Power largely supplied and controlled by

It is towards that development that events now move. It has its danger
in that there may be a growing brusqueness in British negotiations in
the Pacific. The Dominions of Canada, Australia and New Zealand (I
include Canada because all the indications are that she will now fall
into line with the other Pacific British nations), paying so much to the
piper, will want to call the tune: and whereas British diplomacy with
the United States is to-day a shade too deferential, Australasian and
Canadian diplomacy possibly will fall into the other error. Experience,
of course, will cure the impatience of youth in time. But it is
important that at the outset there should be no occasions for bad
feeling. A friendly informal conference between Great Britain, the
United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, ushering in the
opening of the Panama Canal, would provide an opportunity for beginning
the frank discussion which is needed.

The position in the Pacific confronting such a conference would be this:
that friendly co-operation between the United States and Great Britain
would give to the Anglo-Saxon race the mastery of the world's greatest
ocean, laying for ever the fear of the Yellow Peril, securing for the
world that its greatest readjustment of the balance of power shall be
effected in peace: but that rivalry between these two kindred nations
may cause the gravest evils, and possibly irreparable disasters.



 Acadia (_see_ Nova Scotia).

 Adriatic, the, 41.

 Ainus, the, 35, 138.

 Albuquerque takes Malacca, 96.

 Alexander the Great, 21, 103.

 Alliance between Great Britain and Japan, 39, 42, 199 _et seq._

 Amber, the Arabian search for, 22.

 America: a "New France" in, 165.

 American bureau, the, 272, 273.
   conferences, 272, 273.
   diplomacy, 224, 275, 276.
   --educated Chinese, 53, 54.
   Empire, growth of, 69.
   Imperial system, an, 12, 161, 164.
   Imperialism and the Filipinos, 82.
   national temper, the, 67.
   naval bases, 224.
   "relationship talk," 277.
   War of Independence, the, 86.

 Andes, the, 151.

 Anglo-Celtic alliance, an, 14, 15.
   race and the British Dominions, 278.
   race best equipped for world dominance, 267.

 Anglo-Saxon, the Elizabethan, 69, 148.

 Anson, Admiral, 91.

 Apia Harbour, Samoa, 215.

 Arabians search for amber, 22.

 Arabs and the Baltic, 22.

 Argentine Republic, the, 150, 160, 162.
   army of, 197.
   navy of, 183.

 Armies of the Pacific:
   Argentine, 197.
   Australian, 191.
   Bolivian, 197.
   Brazilian, 197.
   British, 191.
   Canadian, 191.
   Chinese, 190.
   Colombian, 198.
   Ecuador, 198.
   Indian, 191.
   Japanese, 189.
   Mexican, 197.
   New Zealand, 191.
   Paraguay, 198.
   Russian, 186, 187.
   South American, 198.
   United States, 190.

 Aryans, the, 21.

 _Asahi Shimbun_, the, 46.

 Asia, arrogance of, 40.
   for the Asiatics, 241, 264.

 Asiatic colonisation, White fear of, 231.
   immigration, 234.
   labour, 228.
   labour, cheapness exaggerated, 237.
   peril, the greatest, 266.
   populations, natural checks, 58.
     European influence on, 59.
   trade competition, 235, 236, 237.

 Asiatics as navvies and dock-labourers, 239.
   preventive medicine and, 59.
   cannot compete with Europeans, 239.

 Atlantic, the, and the White Man, 267.
   German power in, 212.

 Australasia, 100.

 Australasia and the White Race, 101.

 Australasian Empire, an, 126.

 Australia, 3, 11, 13, 21, 93, 94, 109, 248, 250, 265, 277.
   a "colonising invasion" of, by Japan, 253.
   and Imperial naval co-operation, 116.
   annexed by Capt. Cook, 94-95, 101, 123.
   anti-Asiatic policy of, 106, 279.
   army of, 191.
   Chinese poll-tax in, 234.
   coloured labour in the mines, 238 (footnote).
   Defence Act, the, 109.
   early settlers, 102.
   first Fleet sails for, 95.
   food production possibilities of, 119.
   impatient Imperialism of, 277.
   Imperialism of, 110.
   in 1901 prohibits coloured immigration, 202.
   keeping the Asiatic out of, 106.
   laws against Asiatic immigration, 234.
   Military College of, 192, 193.
     official conditions, 193.
     cadets, 193.
     gambling and cigarette-smoking prohibited, 194.
   nation-building material, 105.
   Northern Territory of, 138, 238 (footnote), 251, 252, 253, 254, 262.
   populating, 255.
   potentially the greatest asset of the British race, 118.
   prayers for rain, 106.
   prolific, 102.
   strategical position of, 251.
   universal training for military service, 108.
   unvisited by Asiatics in the early days of the Pacific, 58.
   William Dampier in, 104.

 Australian aboriginal race, the, 137, 138.
   birth-rate, 256, 257.
   Bushman, the, 121.
     as material for a great warrior nation, 122.
   colonists aggressively Imperial, 95.
   democracy, ideal of, 278.
   Education Test, 203, 234.
   Fleet unit, the, 113 _et seq._
   Pacific Fleet, the, 181.
   sternly resolute, 106.

 Australians, warlike spirit of, 108.
   aggressive patriotism of, 117.

 Aztecs, the, 156.

 "Balance of power," 17.

 Balboa of Castile, 2, 153.

 Baltic, the, 22.

 Banana tree, the, 145.

 Barbary States, U.S.A., war with, 70, 72.

 Barrett, Mr, 272.

 Bible, the, 148.

 Bingham, Hiram, at Honolulu, 77.

 Blaine, Mr, 272.

 "Blue-water School of Strategy," 245.

 Boccaccio's story of a Christian, 53.

 Bolivia, 151, 160.
   army of, 197.

 Bombay, rats in, 61.

 Borneo, 248.

 Boston, 77.

 Botany Bay, 104.

 Boxer outbreak of 1900, the, 50, 59.

 Brazil, army of, 197.
   Republic of, 160, 162.

 Britain, military forces, 191.
   Roman invasion of, 87.

 British Admiralty and Imperial naval co-operation, 112.
   and Japanese, analogy between, 35.
   Columbia and Asiatic immigration, 45, 234.
   Continent in the Pacific, the, 100 _et seq._
   diplomacy in Pacific, 276, 279.
     modification of, in the future, 277.
   Dominions, their loyalty to the Mother Country, 277.
   Empire, one grave strategical weakness, 251.
     foundation of, 76.
     strategical position of, 258.
     the possibilities of, 129.
     White population of, 129.
   Flag in the South Pacific, the 135.
   foreign policy, 17.
   garrisons in India, 191.
   Government recognise Maoris as a nation, 125.
   Imperial expansion, 17.
   intentions on Tibet, 211.
   --Japanese Alliance, renewal of, 208.
     Trade Treaty, right of British overseas Dominions regarding Japanese
       immigration, 207.
     Treaties: of 1902, 199.
       of 1905, 204, 209.
       of 1911, 199, 206, 207-208.
     Treaty, the, 279.
       provisions of, 199-201, 204-206.
     War against United States, contingency abolished, 208.
   maritime intercourse with Russia, 214.
   naval power in the Pacific, re-establishment of, 265.
   Navy: effective tonnage, 185.
   Pacific Fleet, a, 181.
   Pacific naval strength, 14.
   people, the, Empire-making of, 87.
   people, the racial origin of, 87.
   --Russian Alliance not impossible, 213.
   trade with Latin America, 162, 163.
   treaty with Holland, 96.

 Britons, Romanised, 88.

 "Brown Bess" musket, the, 197.

 "Bush," the, in Australia, 121.
   in New Zealand, 120.

 Byzantine culture and the Southern Slavs, 22.
   Empire, the Greek Church and the, 23.

 Byzantium and the Normans, 22.

 California, annexation of, 73.
   Japanese in, 45.

 Canada, 2, 11, 13, 259, 265, 277.
   and the Japanese immigrants, 202.
   and the Pacific, 165 _et seq._
   anti-Asiatic policy of, 279.
   French in, 165, 167, 168.
   importance of, to British position in the Pacific, 248.
   landing fees on Chinese, 234.
   militia forces of, 191, 194.
   naval plans, 183.
   organisation of militia, 195.
   originally a French colony, 165.
   policy of Colonel Hughes, Defence Minister, 174.
   political tendencies, 170.
   proposed Reciprocity Treaty with United States, 174.
   race troubles in, 233.
   religion of, 168.
   rifle factory, 194.
   strategical position of, 247.
   the coastal waters of, 169.
   the new spirit regarding Defence, 194.
   universal military training and, 196.
   water power of, 243.

 Canadian Defence League, The, 195.
   feudal system, 167.
   Fleet unit, Sir Wilfrid Laurier on, 172.
   General Election of 1911, the, 171, 195.
   militia, the, 171.
   naval policy, 172.
   Pacific provinces and Japanese immigration, 202 (and footnote).
   Provinces, federation of, 73.
   protests against, 73, 74.
   railways and Chinese labour, 233.

 Cannibalism, 140.

 Canute, King, 213.

 Carausius, 88.

 Caribbean naval base for United States, 179.
   Sea, Spanish power destroyed, 82.
   the United States and the, 67.

 Cartier, Jacques, 166.

 Castile, the King of, 2.

 Catherine the Great, 189, 214.

 Caxamalco, Pizarro at, 153.

 Chagres, the, 219.

 Champlain, 166.

 Chang Chih-tung, 51, 52.

 Chili, 2, 10, 150, 151.
   army of, 197.
   navy of, 183.
   Republic of, 160, 163.

 China, 3, 25, 266.
   a new, 56.
   ancestor worship in, 55.
   and the German Emperor, 10.
   and the teeming millions of Asia, 47.
   and the White Race, 56.
   army of, 190.
   Chang Chih-tung's suggestions for reform, 51, 52.
   Christian missionaries in, 50.
   Confucianism in, 48, 49, 56 (footnote), 57.
   deprived of Malthusian checks, 57, 65.
   first European ambassadors to, 40.
   infanticide in, 57.
   Jesuit missionaries in, 50.
   legendary history of, 48.
   militancy in, 64.
   Mohammedans in, 48.
   nation-birth of, 8.
   navy of, 178.
   not a Power in world-politics generally, 34.
   persecution of missionaries, 50.
   population of, 8, 63.
   Republic of, 54.
     a united, 55.
   Republicanism in, 54, 55.
     Mr Kwei Chih on, 55 (footnote).
   Revolution in, 8.
   suggested alliance with France, 48.
   Taoism in, 49.
   territorial integrity of, 200, 201, 202, 204, 209, 210, 211.
   the Manchu dynasty, 50, 55 (footnote).
   the Ming dynasty, 50.
   the Mongol dynasty, 49.
   the power of, in the Pacific, 9.
   the Reform movement in, 51 _et seq._

 Chinaman, the, arrogance of, 48.
   courage of the, 47.
   superior to Japanese, 47.

 China's attitude regarding Pacific issues, 65.
   indemnity to Japan, 26.

 Chinese ancestor worship, 55.

 Chinese, artistry of the, 34.
   as agriculturists, 238.
   as miners, 237.
   contempt of, by Japanese, 56.
   distaste for adventure, 57.
   Grand Khan, the, 49.
     exchanges greetings with Pope of Rome, 50.
   hatred of the Japanese, 56.
   immigration forbidden in United States, 235.
   immigration, restrictions on, 64.
   in the Malay Archipelago, 58.
   in the United States, 53.
   --Japanese alliance not likely, 56.
   labour on Canadian railways, 233.
   landing fees in Canada, 234.
   national spirit of the, 51.
   non-aggressive, 56.
   parent races of, 49.
   poll-tax in Australia, 234.
   rights in the Malay Peninsula, 142.
   Socialists, 49.
   students visit Japan, 53.
   war, the, 26.

 Christian missionaries in China, 50.

 _Chuen Hsueh Pien_, the Bible of Chinese moderate reformers, 52.

 Clayton-Bulwer treaty, the, 81.

 Colbert, the Minister of Louis XIV., 167.

 Colombia, army of, 198.

 Colombo, Capt. Macaulay on, 97.

 "Colossus of the North," the, 17, 25.

 Columbia, 163.

 Columbus, 104, 105.

 _Commonwealth Crisis, The_, 253.

 Commonwealth of Australia, birth-rate of, 256, 257.

 Confucianism in China, 48, 49, 56 (footnote), 57.

 Constantinople, Convention of, 221.
   Russia in, 23.
   the Turk in possession of, 41.

 Cook, Captain, 94, 101.
   annexes Australia, 95, 123.
   lands at Botany Bay, 104.
   visits New Zealand, 123, 141.

 Corea, 5, 6.
   and the Tartar invaders of Japan, 35.
   annexed by Japan, 38, 42, 260.
   independence of, 202.
   Japan and, 64.
   Japanese interests in, 205.
   territorial integrity of, 25, 200, 202, 206.

 Cortes, 2, 3, 156.

 Cossacks, the, 187, 188.
   the, and Siberia, 5.

 Courteen, Sir William, 104.

 Crimean War, the, 24.

 Cross and Crescent, 23.

 Cuba, 260.
   conquered by Velasquez, 156.
   fate of, 155.
   Guantanamo Bay, 179.
   naval base at, 222.
   Spain's misgovernment of, 82.

 Cushing, Mr Caleb, 81.

 _Cygnet_, the, 104.

 Dale, Sir Thomas, 166.

 Dampier, William, visits Australia, 104.

 Darius and the Greeks, 40.

 Dashwood, Mr, 252.

 Declaration of Neutrality of 1893, American, 68.

 De Monts, 166.

 De Quiros, 104.

 De Torres, 104.

 Diaz, 2.
   abdication of, 159.
   and the Mexican revolutionaries, 158.
   fall of, 158.

 Dickinson, Mr, United States Secretary for War, 172 (footnote).

 Drake, Sir Francis, 69, 91.

 "Dreadnought" types in 1912 and 1915, forecast of, 184.

 Ecuador, 151, 161, 260.
   army of, 198.

 Edward, Dr Hall, 229.

 Effective tonnage of the three greatest Naval Powers in 1912 and
     1915, 185.

 Egyptians' device for avoiding mosquitoes, 217.

 Elizabeth, Queen, 24.

 Elizabethan Englishman, the, 69, 148.
   era, the, 90, 214.

 England, an ingenious speculation as to her climate on opening of Panama
     Canal, 220.
   Elizabethan, the spirit of, 76.
   her sea-power, 89.

 English Channel, the, 87.

 Englishman, the Elizabethan, 69, 148.

 _Entente_ between Great Britain and Russia, 199.

 Europe prohibits Asiatic internecine warfare, 59.

 European ambassadors to China, the first, 40.
   "balance of power," a, 17.
   hegemony, the, 40.
   relations with China, 49.
   scientists and Asiatics, 59.
   trade and missions in China, 50.

 Fanning Island, 251.

 Fiji, 3.
   Group acquired by Great Britain, 134.
   Hindoo labourers in, 231.

 Fijian, a typical gardener, 143.

 Filipinos, the, 82.

 Finns, the, 21.

 Fisher, Mr, Prime Minister of Australia, 133.

 Fitz-Gerald, Mr James Edward, 126.

 Fleet unit, the Australian, 113 _et seq._

 Formosa, 4.
   ceded by China to Japan, 38.

 Fotheringham, Colonel, 196.

 France, 3, 10, 199.
   and China, suggested alliance, 48.
   Napoleon and, 18.
   trade relations with Japan, 38.

 Fremantle, Dr Francis, 60.

 French Canada of to-day, 167.
   under theocratic despotism, 167.

 French-Canadian priesthood, the, 168.

 French Canadians, 165, 168.
   their national character, 168.

 French project for Panama Canal, 216.
   Revolution, the, 124.

 French, the, 267.

 Galapagos Islands, the, 222, 224, 260.

 Gatun Lake, area of, 218, 219.

 Gengis Khan, 22, 49.

 German navy: effective tonnage, 185.
   power in the Atlantic, 212.

 Germans, the, in Kiao-Chau, 10.

 Germany, 3, 10.
   a possible ally of Japan, 199.
   a possible ally of United States, 199, 212.

 Gordon, General, 47.

 Grant, President, 74.

 Great Britain a Free Trade country, 206.
   abandons "splendid isolation" ideal, 27.
   acquires the Fiji Group, 134.
   and her Indian Empire, 86.
   and Japan, alliance, 14, 28, 34, 39, 199.
     Treaty of Commerce and Navigation with Japan, 206, 207-211.
   and Russia, an understanding between, 213, 214.
     _entente_ between, 199.
     friendship between, 211.
   and the Pacific, 269.
   and United States, an instinct towards friendliness, 199.
     friendliness between, 215.
     treaty with United States, 220.
   annexes New Zealand, 125.
   entry into the Pacific, 85.
   her naval strength in the Pacific, 14.
   Imperialist sentiment in, 203.
   navy of, 180.
   sensitive to opinions of her Dominions, 203.
   the rivalry of the United States, 269.
   trade relations with Japan, 38.

 Great Britain, where established on west of Pacific, 248.

 Great Lakes, the, and the United States, 70.

 Greek Church, the, 22, 188.
   and the Byzantine Empire, 23.
   republics, the, and the Persian Empire, 41.

 Greeks and Persians, 40.

 Grijalba in Mexico, 156.

 Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, 179.

 Gulf Stream, the, 87, 219.

 "Habitants," 167.

 Hairy Ainus, the, 35.

 Hamilton, Alexander, 71.

 Hawaii and the Maoris, 139.
   Arms Registration Ordinance, 79.
   Spaniards in, 93.
   the coolies and traders of, 145.
   the key to the Pacific coast of North America, 3.

 Hawaiian garrison, the, 190.
   Group, natives helpless material for nation-making, 145.
   Islands, the, 77, 258, 259.
     annexation of, 78, 81, 83.
     Japanese in the, 44, 45, 58.
     Republic formed, 78.
   population: the chief element, 79, 80, 81.

 Hawaiians, the parent stock of the, 142, 145.

 _Health and Empire_, cit., 59-62.

 Hegemony of Pacific Ocean, 258.

 Heine, cit., 24.

 Henderson, Sir Reginald, 181.

 Hercules, the Pillars of, 1.

 Herodotus, 217.

 Holland, British treaty with, 96.

 Holy Alliance, the, 72, 155.

 Honduras, U.S.A., treaty with, 270-271.

 Hong Kong, 11, 85, 97, 248, 250.
   harbour of, 98.

 Honolulu, 12, 260.
   a holiday scene at, 80.
   Harbour, 259.
   Hiram Bingham's first sermon at, 77.
   naval base at, 78, 80.

 Hughes, Colonel, 174, 195.

 Huidekoper, Mr, 171 (footnote), 172 (footnote).

 Huns, the, 40.

 Imperial Conference of 1911, the, 127 _et seq._
   Defence Conference of 1909, the, 111, 172, 181, 183.
     the British Admiralty memorandum concerning, 112.
   Navy, an, 112, 130.

 Imperialism of Australia, 110.

 Imperialist sentiment in Great Britain, 203.

 Incas, the, 151, 152, 153.

 "Independent Tribes of New Zealand," the, 125.

 India, 11.
   an independent, 9.
   British garrisons in, 191.
   defence of, 249.
   Great Britain's apprehensions regarding, 25.
   internecine warfare prohibited in, 59.
   occupation of, 249.
   Russia and, 25.
   the British in, 9.
   the _Raj_ and, 9.
   the Sepoy forces in, 191.
   western sea-passage to, 92.
   White garrison of, 249.

 Indian Empire, the, Great Britain and, 86.
   frontier, the, 205.
   Ocean, the, 85.

 Industrial position in the Pacific, 235, 240.
   "spheres of influence," 236, 240.

 Infanticide in China, 57.

 Internecine warfare prohibited by Europe, 59.

 Isthmian Canal, the, 271.

 Ivan the Terrible, 5.

 James I., 104.

 Japan, 3, 4 _et al._
   a dwindling Power, 8.
   alliance with Great Britain, 39.
   an offender against China's national pride, 64.
   and Christianity, 32, 33.
   and Corea, 64.
   and Great Britain, alliance, 14, 199.
   and Manchuria, 64.
   and Russia, 25, 26.
   and Shintoism, 32.
   and the Christian faith, 37.
   and the problem of the Pacific, 42.
   and trade relations with White
   civilisation, 37, 38.
   army of, 189.
   army and navy of, 6.
   bases for industrial prosperity in, 7.
   character of her population, 43.
   exclusiveness of, 37.
   feudal, 36.
   Germany a possible ally of, 199.
   healing of local feuds in, 59.
   in the Pacific, strategical position of, 260.
   industrial expansion of, 7.
   labour movement in, 7.
   "most-favoured-nation" rates, 206.
   nation-making, 32.
   "natural capital" of, 44.
   natural resources of, 6.
   navy of, 14, 177, 178.
   poverty of, 5, 6.
   rumoured alliance with Mexico, 159.
   Sea of, 260.
   Shintoism in, 36.
   territories won in battle, 6.
   the awakening of, 31.
   the greatest warrior Power in the Pacific, 32.
   the "honoured ally" of Great Britain, 33.
   the Mikados of, 31, 36.
   the rise of, 31.
   the Tartar invaders of, 35.
   Treaty of Commerce and Navigation with Great Britain, 206, 207-211.
   war with China, 26.
   war with Russia, 7, 25 _et seq._, 265, 268.
   warlike confidence of, 6.

 Japanese acquire Formosa, 38.
   acquire the Pescadores, 38.
   ancestry of, 35.
   and British, analogy between, 35.
   annex Corea, 38, 42.
   arrogance of the, 46.
   artistry of the, 34.
   as painters and potters, 33.
   --Chinese alliance the greatest Asiatic peril, 266.
   contempt for Chinese, 56.
   disappointment with the Anglo-Japanese Alliance, 210-211.
   emigrants, 45, 46.
   Government proposes State adoption of Christian religion, 32 (footnote).
   hatred of, by Chinese, 56.
   interests in Corea, 205.
   Minister for Home Affairs: communication to Japanese
       Press, 32-33 (footnote).
   national feeling of the, 46.
   naval estimates (current), 177.
   settlements, 44.
   tariffs, 241, 242.
   the chief element of Hawaiian population, 79, 80, 81.
   their reputed genius for war, 28.
   transformation of the race, 33.

 Java, 93.

 Java Major, 103.

 Jebb, Mr Richard, 232.

 Jesuit missionaries in China, 50.

 "Jingoism" of British nations in South Pacific, the, 95.

 Kanakas, the, 136, 142, 143, 144, 145.

 Kiao-Chou and the German "mailed fist," 10.

 Kidman, Mr Sydney, 252.

 Kirk, David, 166.

 Kirness, C. H., 253.

 Kitchener, Field-Marshal Lord, 111.

 Knox, Secretary, 159 (footnote), 212.

 Kouropatkin, General, 29.

 Kwei Chih, Mr, 55 (footnote).

 Labour and anti-Asiatic movements, 232, 233.
   movement in Japan, the, 7.

 Lansdowne, Marquess of, 201.

 Latin America, 147 _et seq._, 162, 273.
   and the Monroe doctrine, 162.
   British export trade with, 162, 163.
   navy of, 183.
   race-mixture in, 147.
   strength of, 160-161.
   summary of position of, 163.
   the military strength of, 196.
   universal service in, 197.

 Latin-American armies, the, 197.
   Empire, a, 161.
   Power, a, 150.
   Republics, the, 72, 75.
   United States, the Suzerain Power of, 74.

 Latin-Indian race, the, 147.

 Latin peoples, the, 267.

 Laurier, Sir Wilfrid, 128, 183, 194.
   defeat of, 170 _et seq._

 Laval, Monseigneur, 167.

 Lesseps, Ferdinand de, 216.

 Levant, the, 41.

 Lithuania, Roman culture in, 22.

 Lithuanians, the, 22.

 Logie, Colonel, 196.

 _London Gazette_, the, on America, 70.

 Louis XIV. of France, 167.

 Louisiana, cession of, 72.

 Macaulay, Captain, 97.

 Macdonald, Sir C., 201.

 Machiavelli, 57.

 Magalhaes, 104.

 Malacca, 95.

 Malakiki Hill, the Gibraltar of Honolulu, 79.

 Malay Archipelago, the, 58.
   Peninsula, the, 230.
     Chinese rights in, 142.
   States, the, 142.

 Malays and Chinese, 230.

 Malaysians, the, 139.

 Malthusian checks, 57, 65.

 Manchu dynasty, the, 50, 55 (footnote).

 Manchuria, 5, 6, 20.
   Japan and, 64.
   Russian generals in, 29.

 Manchus, the, 8, 9, 266.

 Manila, 260.

 Maori flag saluted by British warship, 125.

 Maori, the, 122, 136, 138, 139.
   race in 1769, population of, 141.
   system of government, the, 139.
   War, the, 140.

 Maoris, cannibalism prevalent among, 140.
   cede their country to Queen Victoria, 125.
   chivalry of, 140.
   in New Zealand, population of, 145.
   results of civilisation, 141.
   similarity to Japanese, 141.
   the parent stock of the, 142.

 Marco Polo, 49, 103.

 Marsden, Rev. Samuel, 123.

 Maximilian, 157.

 Mediterranean, the, 1.
   and the White Man, 267.
   Russia and, 18, 23.

 Melanesia, 94.

 Meliorism, 265.

 Mencius, 52.

 Merritt, Lieut.-Col. Wm. Hamilton, 195.

 Mexicans, the aboriginal, 137.
   the, and Diaz, 158.

 Mexico, 2, 150, 259.
   army of, 197.
   Balboa in, 153.
   Empire of, 157.
   Grijalba lands at, 156.
   Gulf of, and the United States, 70.
   Republic of, 161, 163.
   rumoured alliance with Japan, 159.
   Spaniards in, 92.
   under Spanish rule, 157.
   United States and intervention, 159, 269.
   Velasquez in, 156-157.
   yields independence to Cortes, 156.

 Meyer, Secretary, U.S. Navy, 178, 179.

 Mikados of Japan, 31, 36.

 Military College of Australia, the, 192.
   official conditions of, 193.
   strength of Latin America, the, 196.
   training in Canada, 196.

 Militia, Canadian, a conference on organisation, 195.

 Militia force of Canada, 194.

 Ming dynasty, the, 50.

 Miscegenation, 148, 149.

 Mississippi, the, 165.

 Mogul, the Great, 3.

 Mohammedans and China, 48.

 Mongol dynasty, the, 49.
   invasion of Russia, 22.

 Mongolia, Russia's designs on, 211.

 Mongols, the, 21, 44.

 Monroe doctrine, the, 155, 159 (footnote), 160, 171, 220.
   in United States, 71, 72, 73, 75.
     extended in scope, 73-74.

 Monroe, President, 71.
   his formal message, 72 _et seq._

 Morioris, the, 139.

 Moscow, 22.

 Mosquitoes, 217.
   Herodotus on, 217.
   massacre of, in Panama Canal-building, 217.
   Papuan natives and, 217.
   trouble of, in cutting Suez Canal, 218.

 Mukden, battle of, 29, 39, 40, 41, 42.

 Murray, His Excellency Colonel, 144.

 Muscovite Czars, the, 23.

 Napoleon, 16, 17, 18, 40, 72, 157, 246.
   and Russia, 24.

 Napoleonic Wars, the, 155.

 Naval forces of the Pacific, 176 _et seq._

 Navies of the Pacific:
   Argentine Republic, 183.
   Australia, 182.
   Canada, 183.
   Chili, 183.
   China, 178.
   Great Britain, 180.
   Japan, 177.
   Latin America, 183.
   Russia, 176.
   United States, 178.

 Navy, an Imperial, 130.

 Neutral market, a, 230.
   markets, Asiatics in, 235, 236, 237.
   in which Asiatics can compete, 244.

 Negro problem, the, 274.

 "New France," a, in America, 165.
   the early founders of, 166.

 New Guinea, 248.
   annexed by Queensland, 134.

 New South Wales, birth-rate of, 255.
   Royal Commission on fall of birth-rate, 255, 257.

 New York, Naval Yard of, 13.

 _New York Sun_, the, 212.

 New Zealand, 3, 11, 13, 94, 248, 250, 265, 277.
   a Company formed to colonise, 123.
     its prospectus, 124.
   a steady flow of emigrants to, 125.
   and the smaller Colonies, 120 _et seq._
   anti-Asiatic policy of, 279.
   army of, 191.
   Captain Cook visits, 123, 141.
   Christianity introduced, 123.
   colonists aggressively Imperial, 95.
   early settlers, 122.
   Empire, a, 134.
   exclusion of Asiatics, 234.
   formally taken over by Great Britain, 125.
   impatient Imperialism of, 277.
   Imperial patriotism of, 127.
   Maoris in, 145.
   naval agreement with, 132, 133 (footnote).
   naval policy of, 133.
   population of, 141.
   strategical position of, 251.
   the "Bush," 120.
   the Treaty of Waitangi, 125, 126.
   universal training for military service, 130.

 Nicaragua, U.S.A., treaty with, 270.

 Norfolk Island, 251.

 Normans, the, 22, 89, 90.

 Norsemen pirates, the, 89.

 North America, the Republic of, 150.

 North Sea, the, 87.

 Northern Territory of Australia, the, 138, 238 (footnote), 251, 252,
     253, 254, 262.
   conditions as regards productiveness and health, 254.
   decidedly healthy, 254.
   life in, 254.

 Novgorod, 213.

 Ocean of the future, the, 1 _et seq._

 "Open-door" agreements, 236, 241.

 Opium War of 1840, the, 50.

 Oregon, annexation of, 73.

 Osaka _Mainichi_, the, on the Anglo-Japanese Alliance, 210.

 Ottoman invasion, the, 41.
   suzerainty of Europe, Napoleon and the, 40.

 Oversea Dominions, population of, 128, 129.

 Pacific armies, the chief, 198.
   British Dominions, uneasiness regarding British-Japanese Treaty, 202,
   Fleet: Australian unit, 181.
     of American battleships, the welcome given to, 278.
   Russia urged to build a, 213.

 Pacific, the, American influence in, 11-12.
   and Great Britain, 269.
   and the United States, 269.
   armies of the, 186 _et seq._
   British Empire and the mastery of, 11.
   British influence in, 11.
   British possessions in, 13.
   British trade interests in, 162.
   China and, 8 _et seq._
   control of: an Anglo-Celtic union advisable, 14.
   Drake's log on entering, 91.
   fortresses and trading stations, 3.
   France and, 10.
   future of, Japan's chance, 265.
   future of, with White Races, 265.
   Germany and, 10.
   Great Britain and, 10.
   hegemony of, 4, 46.
   India and, 9, 10.
   industrial position, governed by excluding Asiatic labour, 235, 240.
   industrial position in, 228 _et seq._
   Japan and, 5 _et seq._
   Japan the greatest warrior Power in, 32.
   naval and military forces in, 15.
   navies of the, 176 _et seq._
   no Free Trade ideas in the, 235.
   ocean of the future, 1.
   position of Japan in, 46.
   rivals for, 263 _et seq._
   Russia in, 16 _et seq._, 268.
   Russian influence in, 4.
   South America and, 10.
   Spain in, 91.
   strategical position of Japan in, 260.
     of United States in, 260.
   strategy of, 246.
   Treaties in, 199.
   United States and, 68.
   Yellow and White Races and, 63.

 Palmyra Island, 12 (footnote).

 Pan-American Bureau, the, 272.
   Conferences, 272, 273.

 Panama Canal, the, 5, 12, 13, 42, 75, 160, 163, 176, 178, 179, 216
     _et seq._, 218, 220, 243, 259, 260, 265, 280.
   and United States, 269.
   American commerce and, 225.
   amount expended by United States, 227.
   amount of Pacific and Atlantic water exchanged by, 220.
   as a tariff weapon, 224.
   early difficulties, 216.
   free navigation of, 221.
   intended by United States as means of securing dominance in Pacific,
       223, 224.
   military police for, 221.
   naval base at Cuba, 222.
   "neutralisation" of the, 220.
   plague of mosquitoes, 217.
   Secretary Meyer on, 179.
   sovereign rights of the United States, 222.
   tolls, 225.
   treaty regarding management, 220.

 Panama, hills of, 219
   Isthmus, the, 81, 155.
     by no means unhealthy, 218.
   the United States and, 67.

 Papua, natives of, and mosquitoes, 217.

 Papua, New Guinea, 144.

 Paraguay, army of, 198.
   Republic of, 161.

 Peace Societies, 109.

 Peace of Shimonoseki, the, and its consequences, 38.

 Pearl Harbour, 78, 79.

 Pekin, the expedition of 1900 to, 50.

 Penang, 95.

 Persia and the Greeks, 40.

 Persian Gulf, the, 25.

 Peru, 2, 10, 92, 150, 151 _et seq._, 160.
   occupied by Spaniards, 154.

 Peruvians, the, 8, 137.
   and the elimination of the fighting instinct, 111.
   Spanish description of, 152.

 Pescadores, the, acquired by Japan, 38.

 Philippine garrison, the, 190.

 Philippines, the, 3, 4, 12, 104, 259.
   Anson's attempt to subdue, 91.
   the Spaniards at, 104.
   United States acquire, 82.

 Pizarro, Francisco, 153, 156.

 "Places at table," 118.

 "Places in the sun," 118.

 Plague, the, 59.
   Dr Francis Fremantle on, 60.
   Prof. W. J. Simpson on, 61.

 Polk, President, 73.

 Polo, Marco, 49, 103.

 Polynesia, 94.

 Pope of Rome exchanges greetings with Chinese Grand Khan, 50.

 Portugal: trade relations with Japan, 38.

 Poutrincourt, 166.

 Power, Senator, 196.

 Prayers for rain, 106.

 Preventive medicine as aid to population, 118.

 Protection, a rigid system of, 226.

 Quebec, 166.
   captured by Admiral Kirk, 166.
   restored to France, 167.
   the capital of "New France," 166.

 Queensland annexes New Guinea, 134.

 Race-mixture, instinct against, 20.

 Race troubles in Canada, 233.

 Races, psychology of, 35.

 Raffles, Sir Stamford, 96.

 Rain, prayers for, 106.

 Raw levies, uselessness of, 197.

 Republicanism in China, 54, 55.
   Mr Kwei Chih on, 55 (footnote).

 Richelieu, 166.

 Rocky Mountains, the, 169, 243.

 _Roebuck_, the, 104.

 Roman Catholics in Canada, 168.

 Roman invasion of Britain, 87, 88.

 Romanised Britons, 88.

 _Rosanna_, the, conveys pioneers to New Zealand, 123.

 Rurik, 22.

 Russia, 3, 4.
   and a Pacific Fleet, 213.
   and Great Britain, _entente_ between, 199.
   and India, 18.
   and Japan, 25, 26.
   and Napoleon, 24.
   and Siberia, 25.
   and the Mediterranean, 18, 23.
   and the Napoleonic invasion, 16, 17.
   and the Pacific, 10.
   and the Persian Gulf, 25.
   army of, 186, 187.
   British dread of, 18.
   British maritime intercourse with, 214.
   Cross versus Crescent, 23.
   early European civilisations, 21.
   European jealousy of, 5.
   expansion of, 19.
     mistrust of European Powers, 24.
   future position of, in the Pacific, 29.
   Great Britain's alarm of, 24, 25.
   Greeks and Romans in, 21.
   in Constantinople, 23.
   interior of, 21.
   invasion of the Turks, 23.
   Lord Salisbury on, 16.
   national heroes of, 22.
   naval strategy of, 261.
   navy of, 176.
   race-mixture in, 20.
   religious faith, 22.
   service to civilisation, 23.
   the avenger of the White Races, 23.
   war with Japan, 7, 19, 25 _et seq._, 265.

 Russian intentions on Mongolia, 211.

 Russians, faith of the, 23.

 Russo-Japanese War, the, 7, 19, 25 _et seq._, 265.
   difficulties of Russians, 29.

 St Francis Xavier, 37.

 St Germain-en-Laye, Treaty of, 167.

 St Helena, Napoleon in, 18.

 St Lawrence, the, 165.

 Saito, Baron, 46.

 Salisbury, Lord, 16.

 Sandwich Islands, 77.

 San Francisco, 91, 260.

 Satsuma, revolt of the, 38.

 Sea of Japan, 260, 261.

 Selkirks, the, 169, 243.

 Semites, the, 21.

 Sepoy forces in India, 191.

 "Setch," the Cossack, 188, 189.

 Shimonoseki, the Peace of, 38.
   the Straits of, 38.

 Shintoism, 32, 36.

 Shoguns, the, 36.

 Siberia, Russia and, 25.
   the Cossacks and, 5.

 Siberian Railway, the, 186.

 Simeon, 22.

 Simpson, Prof. W. J., on the Plague, 61.

 Singapore, 11, 85, 95, 96, 250, 258.
   harbour of, 97.

 Slavs, the, 22, 267.

 Socialism in Japan, 7.

 Socialists in China, 49.

 Sorcerer, the, in the South Sea Islands, 149.

 South America, 10.

 South American armies, 198.

 South Pacific, the British Flag in, 135.
   the native races, 135.

 South Sea Islands, 93, 149.

 Spain: war with United States, 82.

 "Spheres of influence," the, 85, 236, 240.

 Spice Islands, the, 93.

 Straits of Shimonoseki forced, 38.

 Straits Settlements, the, 248.

 Strategical considerations, 245 _et seq._

 Suez Canal, free navigation of, 221.
   the mosquito trouble, 218.

 Sumarai, the, 32.

 Sun-worship, 151.

 Suva, 143.

 Taft, President, 159 (footnote), 171 (footnote), 218, 225, 271.

 Talon, Jean Baptiste, 167.

 Taoism, 49.

 Tartar and Mongol tribes, the, 49.

 Tartary, 3, 22.

 Tasmania, 137.

 Teutons, the, 267.

 Texas, annexation of, 73.

 Thakombau, King, 134.

 Theodosius, Emperor, 49.

 Tibet, British intentions on, 211.

 Tokio _Nichi-Nichi_, the, 211.

 Tracy, Marquis de, 167.

 Trade reciprocity, 164, 174.

 Trans-Andine railways, the, 10.

 Treaties in the Pacific, 199.

 Treaties with Japan, British (1902), 199.
   (1905), 204-209.
   (1911), 199, 206, 207-211.

 Treaty of Commerce and Navigation between Great Britain and Japan, 206,
   of St Germain-en-Laye, 167.

 Triple Alliance, the, 199.

 Triple Entente, the, 213.

 Truvor, 22.

 Turkey, Lord Salisbury on, 16.

 Turks, the, 23, 40.
   at Constantinople, 41.
   Russia and, 19.

 United States, the, 2, 3, 12, 13.
   a social difficulty, 274.
   absorption of Mexican territory by, 158.
   acquisition of Hawaii, 78, 81, 83.
   aggressively Imperial, 68.
   and Cuba, 82.
   and Germany, possibilities of an "understanding" between, 212.
   and Great Britain, an instinct towards friendliness, 199, 215.
   and the Atlantic, 67.
   and the Negroes, 233.
   and the Philippines, 82.
   and trade relations with Japan, 37.
   army of, 190.
   British diplomacy and, 276, 277, 279.
   considering intervention in Mexico, 159.
   control waterway from Atlantic to Pacific, 82.
   decide to construct Panama Canal, 216.
   Declaration of Neutrality, 70.
   established in the Caribbean Sea, 67.
     on the Isthmus of Panama, 67.
   establishing naval base at Cuba, 222.
   foreign policy, 75.
   Germany a possible ally of, 199.
   imperialism in, 66.
   in the Pacific, strategical position of, 260.
   lynchings in, 20.
   marvellous growth of, 70, 72.
   miscegenation in, 20.
   naval strength of, in the Pacific, 14.
   navy, 178.
     effective tonnage, 185.
     Secretary Meyer's report on, 178.
   neutral markets, 83.
   organisation of industrial machinery, 243.
   Pacific possessions, 84.
   policy, Imperialist tendency of, 77.
   rivals of Great Britain, 269.
   rules for exclusion of Chinese, 235.
   strategical position of, 258.
   the greatest factor in the Problem of the Pacific, 68.
   the greatest White nation of the world, 150.
   the "Monroe doctrine" in, 71, 72, 73, 75.
   the Suzerain Power of the Latin-American Republics, 74.
   war with Spain, 82
   when Panama Canal opened, the greatest Power of the Pacific, 243.

 Universal military training proposed in Canada, 196.

 "Universal service" in Latin America, 197.

 Ural Mountains, the, 20.

 Uruguay, 161, 163.

 Vancouver, 251.

 Veddas, the, 138.

 Velasquez, conqueror of Cuba, 156.

 Venezuela controversy, the, 74.
   Republic of, 161.

 Victoria, Queen, 24, 125.

 Vienna and the Ottoman invasion, 41.

 Waitangi, the Treaty of, 125, 126.

 Wakefield, Mr Edward Gibbon, 124.

 Wallace on the black Australian, 137.

 War, the necessity of, 6.

 Ward, Sir Joseph, 127 _et seq._

 Washington's farewell address, 71.

 Wei-hai-wei, 248, 250.

 Wesleyan mission to New Zealand, 132.

 "White Australia," 107, 254.
   laws, the, 20.
   policy, basis of, 232.

 White garrison of India, the, 249.
   labour, impatient, 240.
   Man and the Pacific, 63.
   Race, the, 2, 4, 107.
     conquests of, 41.
     superiority of, 263, 267.
   Races, America and the, 12.
     birth-rate, 257.
     neither enervated nor decadent, 264.
     the future of the Pacific with the, 265.
   Russia consolidated by the Normans, 22.
     Mongol invasion of, 22.

 _Worker, The_, on Asiatic colonisation, 240 (footnote).

 Xavier, St Francis, 37.

 "X-Ray Martyr," the, 229.

 Yellow Man, danger of overrunning the Pacific, 63.

 "Yellow Peril," the, 264, 280.

 Yellow Race, the, 2, 4.
   defeats the White Race in war, 39.

 Yellow Races, the United States and the, 13.

 Yturbidi, Emperor Augustin de, 157.

 Yuan Shih-Kai, 54.


       *       *       *       *       *

Transcriber's note:

1. Except as noted below, spelling and inconsistencies have been
retained as they appear in the original publication.

2. "X-ray" in the text appears as "X-Ray" in the index.

3. "FitzGerald" in the text appears as "Fitz-Gerald" in the index.

4. On page 205, in the sentence starting "Japan possessing paramount",
"Great Britain" was "Gerat Britain" in the original.

5. On page 240, "wheel-barrow" was "wheel-barrrow" in the original.

6. The punctuation in the index has been made consistent.

7. The name "Terra Austrialia del Espiritu Santo" is correct.
"Austrialia" was an invented hybrid word combining the names "Austria"
and "australis" as a compliment to King Phillip III of Spain who was a
member of the House of Habsburg (Austria).

8. "the cageing of the great soldier" was changed to "the caging of the
great soldier"

9. "Hayti" is an old spelling of "Haiti". It has been retained.

10. On p. 155 the word "reassert" has been changed from "re-assert" to
match the spelling elsewhere in the book.

*** End of this Doctrine Publishing Corporation Digital Book "Problems of the Pacific" ***

Doctrine Publishing Corporation provides digitized public domain materials.
Public domain books belong to the public and we are merely their custodians.
This effort is time consuming and expensive, so in order to keep providing
this resource, we have taken steps to prevent abuse by commercial parties,
including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.

We also ask that you:

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Doctrine Publishing
Corporation's ISYS search for use by individuals, and we request that you
use these files for personal, non-commercial purposes.

+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort
to Doctrine Publishing's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a
large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the use of
public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.

+ Keep it legal -  Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for
ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just because
we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States,
that the work is also in the public domain for users in other countries.
Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we
can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of any specific book is
allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Doctrine Publishing
ISYS search  means it can be used in any manner anywhere in the world.
Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe.

About ISYS® Search Software
Established in 1988, ISYS Search Software is a global supplier of enterprise
search solutions for business and government.  The company's award-winning
software suite offers a broad range of search, navigation and discovery
solutions for desktop search, intranet search, SharePoint search and embedded
search applications.  ISYS has been deployed by thousands of organizations
operating in a variety of industries, including government, legal, law
enforcement, financial services, healthcare and recruitment.