A historical geography of the British empire;

Preface

MY object in writing this little book has been to present a general survey of the British empire as a whole, with the historical conditions, at least so far as they depend on geography, which have contributed to produce the present state of things. The historical geography of these islands of course goes very far back ; in the rest of the empire the history, so far as it is English at all, is comparatively modern. In doing this I have tried to bring into special relief the unique character of the empire, both politically and geographically ; for from this uniqueness a most important inference logically follows : no historical precedents exist to guide us as to its probable future.

" Empires, like everything else, come to maturity, and are then bound to decay." " Every empire will perish that extends its boundaries beyond what it can effectively defend." "An empire which ceases to grow is sure to dwindle." We are presented with sonorous platitudes of this type, said to be based on historical induction, usually by people who have no goodwill to England, and who infer from them the more or less speedy fall of the empire. Nobody doubts that the British empire may perish ; it certainly will if a sufficiently powerful league of enemies should ever be formed against it, or if its own statesmen make really fatal blunders. But it may safely be said that no inferences based on the fall of Babylon or of Rome will help anyone to foresee the event,

145171 vi PREFACE

still less if they are derived from the one-man domination of an Attila or a Napoleon. The conditions are unique, the problems to be faced entirely new, and as such our statesmen must deal with them.

I have burdened my pages with few names and fewer figures, my object being less to state facts than to elicit their meaning. As to names, I have inserted none that did not seem necessary to make my sketch clear ; some, of course, are of historical importance only. Statistical figures relating to the British empire are virtually all official, published freely and copied in a variety of publications, so that they are accessible to all the world. It has seemed useless to add to this little book a fresh copy of information which may be read in every public library, which anyone can buy for himself at the cost of a shilling. Moreover, it seems to me that such things in detail rather detract from the clearness of a statement than add to it. Tell a man that Ceylon is 25,481 square miles in area — I give the exact official number — and he probably does not read the figures, certainly he derives no idea from them. Tell him that it is about half as large as England, and he may take notice. Or again, say that Melbourne had 493,956 inhabitants according to the last census, and on another page that Sydney had 483,382, and little eff'ect is produced on the reader's mind. Point out that these two great cities, with nearly half a million souls each, are comparatively near together, and that no other town in all Autralasia contains more than a modest fraction of that number, and the reader will probably see that the fact is significant, and will look for an explanation. It is therefore on principle, and not only to avoid repetition, that I have adopted methods of comparison wherever they occurred to me, and have never gone below round numbers.

This book was originally planned in concert with Mr. C. G.

PREFACE vii

Robertson, who is preparing a historical atlas of the British empire, to be issued by the same publishers. Circumstances have delayed the completion of Mr. Robertson's atlas, which will supply all maps necessary for the elucidation of the present work. There are, however, plenty of available atlases, both historical to illustrate the early ages of English historical geography, and modern to show the more recent expansion of the empire. To have inserted maps enough to make the present work self-sufficing would have added so greatly to its size and cost as to change its character entirely. In matters of nomenclature no difficulty arises except in relation to Indian names. These have to be transliterated from languages possessing different alphabets and different sounds from ours. The best accredited system requires itself to be translated to English readers, for it adds to the English letters sundry marks which modify their meaning. It has seemed to me pedantic, in a book intended for ordinary circulation, to discard name-forms which have been estab- Mshed in English use for centuries, though they may have been phonetically incorrect originally. In respect to minor names I have acted in concert with Mr. Robertson, deferring to his superior knowledge of Indian matters generally. The names will accordingly be found to be spelt as in his forthcoming atlas.

HEREFORD B. GEORGE

Oxford, May, 1904

In the Second Edition some changes in Canada and South

Africa have been recorded, bringing the book up to the date

of ist October, 1905. Otherwise it remains unaltered except

for a very few verbal corrections.

H. B. G.

§2.

Inhabitants

§3.

Consolidation .

§4.

§5.

§6.

Sz

; §7.

. §8.

Isle of Man and Channel Islands

Part III §1

Introductory . . . ... no

%2.

Gibraltar

"3

§3.

Malta .

"5

§4.

Cyprus

. 119

§5.

Aden, etc.

§6.

St. Helena, etc.

. 125

§7.

Mauritius, etc.

. 127

§8.

. 129

§9.

Singapore

. 134

§ 10.

Hong Kong

. 137

§11.

Wei-hai-wei

. 138

§12.

Bermuda

. 139

§13.

Falkland Islands

. m

CONTENTS

Part IV THE DAUGHTER NATIONS

A. CANADA

§ I. Outlines of Geography and

North America

§ 2. General Geography of Canada

§ 3. The Maritime Provinces

§ 5. Central Canada

§ 6. British Columbia

§ 7. The Dominion .

§8. Newfoundland

Early History of

14^

15^

15^1

i6J

i6c

^A

B. AUSTRALASIA

§ I. Geography of Australia •

§ 3. The States of the Commonwealth

§ 4. New Zealand .

§5. The Pacific Islands

Part I INTRODUCTORY

THE character of every state, still more of every empire, must be greatly affected by geographical considerations, and this is pre-eminently true of the British empire, which is unlike any other that the world has yet seen. Her position on the globe, close to Europe yet separate from it, gave England the best opportunity for maritime and commercial greatness. And her people, thanks partly to the admixture of race which other geographical influences had brought about, had the energy to make good use of their opportunities. How far geography helped, or hindered, the consolidation of the British Islands into a single political whole, will be discussed in later chapters. Here it is only necessary to note that political unification, which meant a vast increase in political and military strength, occurred not long after Englishmen had begun definitely to turn their thoughts seaward, and were ready not only to plunge into ocean commerce, but to send out many of their sons as colonists of new regions.

The British empire is in no sense the result of a deliberate policy of aggrandisement, conceived and carried out by a government. It was not made, it grew ; and it remains to be seen whether it has quite done growing. In one sense it is certainly very far from having ceased to grow ; there is room for a vast increase of population and wealth within the regions now included in it. On the other hand circumstances may lead to one or another of the young nations which we have called into being, separating from us, as did our first great group of colonies. Half a century ago it seemed probable, some English statesmen expected and even wished, that the colonies would separate from the mother country, as each became able to stand alone. The metaphor of a parent sending children out into the world when full grown, to make their way for themselves, appeared then naturally applicable. At the present time the opposite metaphor of family affection, of each member of a family group caring for the welfare of the whole, has possession of men's minds. Whether the point of view will shift again, the future only can show ; certainly another disruption of the British empire will not be caused by a repetition of the old mistakes.

The loss of the American colonies was indeed the turning-point in the history of the British empire. When that happened, the expansion of England, to use the phrase which Professor Seeley has made familiar, had been going on for a couple of centuries. It had been twofold all through ; our commerce had extended almost all over the world, leading to trade settlements in tropical regions and to geographical discoveries further and further afield. And simultaneously colonisation had gone a long way in America, though not as yet elsewhere. The dominant motive, however, was altogether commercial ; the trade of the colonies was fettered in the supposed interest of the mother country. No greater mistake could be made in theory, though all nations were then under the same delusion ; that the practice was far less stringent than the theory mitigated the evil considerably, but only mitigated it. The revolt of the American colonies no doubt arose out of questions going deeper still ; but these differences might never have become acute had not England deemed it vital to her interests, as well as theoretically her right, to control their trade.

It is something more than a coincidence that Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations was published so nearly at the moment when we abandoned the attempt to coerce the revolted colonies, backed as they were by half Europe. If his economic principles had been accepted a generation earlier, they might never have rebelled. The influence of Adam Smith's theories has been an important factor in determining English policy towards Canada and Australia.

In another sense also it is true that the British empire was not made, but grew. The acquisition of additional dominions was in more ways than one forced upon us. Had not the French aimed at occupying the valleys of the Ohio and Mississippi, thereby enclosing our colonies along the Atlantic coast, and depriving them of all room for expansion, the conquest of Canada would not have been undertaken. And though Canada meant comparatively little in the middle of the eighteenth century, it carried, as we now know well, enormous possibilities. Similarly the contention whether France or England should be the leading European power in India was forced to an issue by Dupleix. And when that contest also had ended in our favour, supremacy throughout India followed inevitably. The East India Company was sincerely, almost Ignobly, averse to acquiring new territory, and thus increasing its liabilities : its business was to earn dividends for its shareholders, not to build up an empire. Nevertheless the company was unable to avoid fresh annexations ; and the British government, since it assumed direct responsibility for India, has deemed it necessary to do the same. Analogous circumstances have produced similar results In other parts of the world, and not in the case of England only.

The enemies of England abroad are in the habit of sneering at her greed of territory, fulminating against her endless intrigues, threatening her with the vengeance of outraged humanity, and so forth. Englishmen in general know that their country has a clearer national conscience than most others, and that the last thing their government would dream of doing is to intrigue. Hence they are apt to treat all hostile remarks as mere ebullitions of spite or envy. It is perhaps expedient for those who would understand the complicated inter-workings of historical and geographical influences upon the formation of our empire, and its maintenance when formed, to inquire what is the basis of such ill-will, and whether our conduct justifies or excuses it.

Those who look only at the map, and do not ask themselves the meaning of what they read there, say that England has obtained possession of many of the fairest portions of the earth, leaving very little room for other nations to do the like. Under such circumstances is it wonderful that other nations should envy England, and dream of partitioning her empire ? It is no answer, though it is true, that some of them at least had the same or better chances, but failed to utilise them. The sting of past failure only gives additional force to the desire to redress the balance ; and after all there are new nations which had no such chance in the past, and now find the world more or less filled up. Hence envy of our good fortune is inevitable, and even reasonable as human nature goes. The wealthy landowner must expect to be envied by his less fortunate neighbours ; but his conscience need not be uneasy at this unless he treats them unfairly.

The real question therefore is whether the policy of the British empire, as a whole or in its several parts, is unfair to other nations. And it is obvious that, so far from this being the case, England stands alone in the favourable treatment which she aff"ords to foreigners. It would be, of course, preposterous to imagine that this is done for their sakes. We consider that our own interests are best served by the policy which we have adopted, though there are not wanting Englishmen who think that there is a mistake in the calculation. Still, as a matter of fact, other nations have no fair ground for ill-will, rather every reason to be satisfied at the use which we make of our dominions. The foreigner is not excluded, nor treated as an interloper. He can settle under the protection of lav/s which guarantee full personal liberty. He can trade as freely in any of our ports as a born Englishman. In face of the policy of commercial exclusiveness of which some nations almost boast, the second best alternative for every civilised man is that England should own any given place, even assuming that the best would be for it to be possessed by his own state. Would German merchants benefit if Russia ousted the English from India, or American manufacturers if France recovered Canada ?

From another point of view also the national conscience is pure from any taint of greed or selfishness. We draw noT revenue from any of our dominions beyond seas ; on thtT* contrary, we spend large sums on the armed forces which are to defend them and ourselves alike. Every shilling of revenue that is raised in any dependency is expended there ; in case of need the resources of the United Kingdom are taxed to give assistance. No doubt we gain indirectly, security for our trade, outlets for our population, careers for a few of our sons. If these advantages did not compensate, roughly and in the long run, for such expenditure as would not be required were the empire limited to the British Islands, the maintenance of the empire could not be economically justified. It is still true that no single individual among the hundreds of millions who live in peace under the British flag is mulcted of a penny for the benefit of the British exchequer. Moreover, we govern them for their benefit, not for ours, with such reservations as the safety and welfare of the whole may demand ; and we give them such opportunities of making their needs and wishes known as are possible under the varying circumstances of each case.

The most marked characteristic of the British empire, taken as a whole, is the small extent to which the mother country has imposed her own system, political, legal, social, ecclesiastical, on the various colonies and dependencies. This holds good not only in the definitely self-governing colonies like Australia, but in places like Ceylon, which have no self-government at all. We have habitually accepted the legal system already established in colonies acquired by conquest or cession. The Roman-Dutch law was in force when we took over the Cape of Good Hope, and remains so still. The Roman Catholic church had a wealthy establishment in Lower Canada before the British conquest, and it is still dominant, though no longer exclusive. The intricacies of Indian laws, especially of inheritance, are proverbial, there being complicated Hindu and Mohammedan systems administered in the same country. Moreover, we have to a large extent abstained from imposing on the genuine colonies the laws and institutions prevailing in England, and let things shape themselves, after the first stage of absolute novelty was past. The colonists of New England were allowed to build up their own social and ecclesiastical system, in which Puritan ideas were predominant such as never obtained more than partial and temporary acceptance at home.

It must not be supposed that all this was due originally to deliberate calculation. It would be scarcely relevant, if possible, to attempt to discover what motive swayed the home government in each instance. To leave standing the existing laws in a newly conquered island was obviously the easiest thing : and experience soon showed how far they could be retained without modification. To leave English colonists to settle their own affairs accorded well with the national disposition : Englishmen on the average are able and willing to manage for themselves, and like to see government interference reduced to a minimum. Doubtless also there would have been great practical difficulty, in days of slow maritime communication, in maintaining effective and permanent control. One way or another it became the rule, and is now accepted in principle ; the result being that an extraordinary variety of systems, from highly developed codes down to the rude customs of African semi-savages, are administered under the English flag.

It may be expedient to point out in a general way the consequences of this policy, if so definite a name can be applied to what in early instances at least was apparently somewhat haphazard. They have been on the whole advantageous to the entire empire, and in a still greater degree to the various colonies, though not without drawbacks. Inhabitants of newly acquired lands, who found that the change of allegiance made little or no difference to the machinery of daily life, were thereby greatly conciliated. The introduction of British rule has probably nowhere meant less efficient or less just administration, or increased taxation, and in many instances has brought a marked improvement in security and justice. And peace and prosperity obviously tend to make people contented. There is no more effectual means of binding a community together than to allow its members to manage its affairs, wholly or partially, for themselves. The development of local patriotism is a condition almost necessary to the progress of a society in any sense self-governed. The drawback, from the imperial point of view and to a certain extent from the local also, is that colonists may become too narrow and exclusive in their patriotism, and think only of their own immediate interests. The North American colonies, for instance, in the middle of the eighteenth century, were very slow to co-operate in guarding against the peril which menaced them all from the extension of French power in America. Those which lay further from the danger were not keen to assist those which bOre the brunt of it : the latter showed little gratitude to England for delivering them from it. But without the self-government which had incidentally brought about these unfortunate results, they would not have been fit to become a great nation. And the same conditions, without the errors which led to the revolt of the American colonies, have made Canada, for instance, a real and energetic nation in hearty allegiance to the British crown.

It might be argued no doubt that the history of south Africa tells the other way, that it illustrates the evils which result from leaving to a conquered colony its legal and social system, and also giving it self-government. Time will show whether the apparent exception is a real one — whether, when old mistakes have been remedied, old antagonisms will not disappear. Even if this should prove difficult to accomplish in Cape Colony, a wider survey of the British empire as a whole justifies the conclusion that the normal British policy is wise and just. Communities differing in race and the social habits which accompany race, in climate and consequently in mode of life, in position on the globe and consequently in political relations — differing, in short, in all the manifold conditions of g'eographical environment, cannot thrive under a rigid unitormity of government. With a wise diversity of system, with self-government greater or less according to circumstances, the v/idely dissimilar portions of the British empire exhibit also a concordant unity which is unique in the history of the world.

The British empire exhibits the dominant race in almost every possible relation to other races, apart from the fact that the home population comprises an unusually large number of diverse elements, apart also from the descendants of other European peoples inhabiting lands which England has acquired by conquest or treaty. In India there is a miniature world, comprising many different races, some with very ancient civilisation of their own, some almost savages, and of many intermediate grades. And the whole is held together, constrained to peace and order, by an army of English officials, civil and military, and governed in accordance with what England believes to be the best interests of the subject population. In Canada the original inhabitants have almost disappeared, and the population is European. The same holds good in Australasia, though in the tropical portions the question arises whether it may not be necessary to introduce people better fitted than the Anglo-Saxon to work in the hot sun. In the West Indies, though the white men are few, and the now emancipated negroes not too industrious, the labour problem solves itself tolerably, and the coloured races share in the limited amount of self-government allotted to those small communities. In Africa, both east and west, the population is entirely black, and English authority goes little beyond the influence of a civilising mission. In south Africa white men and black live side by side, and the problem of their relation to each other is for the future to solve.

The British empire comprises so many diverse elements that it is practically impossible to distribute its component parts upon any single system, geographical or political, without losing sight of its historical meaning. By a recent statute (52 & 53 Vict. c. 63) the term colony is made legally applicable to all British possessions over sea, with the exception of India. Colony has always been an ambiguous word, and it is certainly not rendered more definite by being made to include things so totally unlike as Canada and Gibraltar. Nor are matters very much improved by dividing colonies, as is commonly done, into those which are self-governing and what are called crown colonies. For the latter is practically a negative term, comprising every British possession, whatever its origin, population, or form of government, which is not virtually a separate nation united to England by the tie of the crown, and by a control from home which is theoretically very small and is in fact not exercised. Moreover, there are not a few quarters where we have powers and responsibilities, as well as interests, far too great and too permanent to be ignored in any survey of the empire as a whole, which cannot possibly be called colonies.

India is usually styled a dependency, a term which implies merely some kind of subjection to the British crown. As a matter of fact, India is not homogeneous, as it comprises a number of vassal states besides the regions under our direct rule. But if we look at British India only, we shall see that it is sharply distinguished from a daughter-nation like Canada in three main respects, (i) It is a country peopled by aliens, for which England supplies the governing classes — the actual administrators and the actual garrison exclusively, except so far as natives are admitted to subordinate employ, and a considerable part of what may be called the unofficial governing classes, such as lawyers, journalists, bankers, merchants. (2) It is ruled altogether by English authority ; the government takes its own means for discovering what measures will be pleasing to its subjects, as well as what will benefit them, but gives them no authoritative voice. (3) The English governing classes do not make India their home : they go thither to discharge certain functions for a longer or shorter period, and then depart. The so-called crown colonies are in an intermediate position, but on the whole much nearer to India than to Canada. In most of them the bulk of the inhabitants are of alien and generally inferior race, negroes of west African origin in the West Indies, Hausas in Nigeria, Bantus and others in south Africa, and so forth. In all the ultimate authority rests with the home government or its representatives, though in most of them the people have, by usage or by definite grant, control over their own local affairs to an extent which varies greatly. In many the climate renders it impossible that Englishmen should be permanent settlers, regarding the colony as their home.

Again, there has been a great difference historically, as to the motives with which we took and retained possession of our various dominions beyond sea. Some were settlements originally made by Englishmen, or acquired by conquest, in which our people could form new homes under the old flag and the old institutions, modified so far as changed circumstances might render expedient. Others are isolated spots all about the world, which have been acquired either directly as trading stations, or for the sake of protecting commercial and other interests. These stepping-stones, as they may be called, are by no means all in the same political category, or of even approximately equal importance ; but they are alike in this, that they are all held for the sake of the empire as a whole.

It will conduce to clearness of view if we class the various components of the British empire in accordance with these considerations. The division will not be logical, but it will serve to bring out the historical and geographical meaning of the whole. After dealing with the British Islands themselves, we shall therefore discuss in succession ** the Stepping-stones," **the Daughter-nations," **the Dependencies," '*the Protectorates," "the British dominions in Africa," which last include specimens of all classes, but are linked together more or less closely, and are therefore best treated together.

Part II THE BRITISH ISLANDS

§ I. STRUCTURE

THE most important event in English history occurred longbefore history began. At an epoch late in geological time a great subsidence of the earth took place, forming the British Islands. Before this, the continent of Europe extended over the North Sea, the English Channel, and the whole region of Britain. The ocean does not attain a depth of loo fathoms till fifty miles or more from the west coast of Ireland and Scotland, beyond which it deepens rapidly. Thus it may be fairly assumed that the subsidence was of something like this amount. The effect was to form a group of islands large enough to constitute a separate realm in historical times, having a climate generally favourable to the development of man, so situated that its south-eastern angle is visible from the Continent, yet separated from it by more than twenty miles of sea. Thus it is easily accessible for peaceful purposes, and yet possesses the most certain and defensible of frontiers, the only kind of frontier along which border quarrels are absolutely impossible.

Geologists are not fully agreed as to the sequence or exact circumstances of these physical changes, though of their general character there is no doubt. It is probable, for instance, that the subsidence was not altogether simultaneous, and that an isthmus, afterwards cut through or submerged, existed where now are the Straits of Dover, long after the western side of the British Islands had assumed something like its present form. It is certain that in the far distant past there were many risings and sinkings of the land, total

II or partial, of which the present configuration is the resultant. These things, however, are completely outside the ken of historical geography, which simply deals with the consequences of them. Similarly it is outside the province of history to dwell on the physical forces which have contributed to mould the surface of the British Islands, both before and after this great change. The net result, attained before the dawn of history, probably before the arrival of any race of men which has contributed an element to the historical population, was to leave the group of islands much as they are now, if the eye of imagination could eliminate all traces of human life. Some portions are fertile and comparatively level, others are hilly and more or less incapable of cultivation ; the coalfields and other mineral deposits, which have been of inestimable value in modern times, were hidden from the eyes of primitive man.

It is however worth while, before proceeding to consider the physical structure of Britain as it is, to observe that the subsidence of the land which formed these islands would have entirely altered their character if it had extended a little further, or had stopped short a little sooner. The three chief facts in the structure of the group are : —

1. The portion of England lying nearest to the Continent is, roughly speaking, level and fertile, tempting immigration originally, and interposing no serious obstacles to exploration" inwards.

2. Beyond this plain, the whole remainder of Britain is hilly, with the result that, when the subsidence took place, the river valleys on the western side became inlets of the sea, and the higher parts of the hill ridges became islands". Thus the same geological movement which made Britain insular gave her also an abundant supply of harbours on the ocean side, an essential condition for her becoming a great maritime nation.