210

ENGLAND AND THE DUAL ALLIANCE

The rapprochement of France and Russia was becoming obvious in 1891, but the military convention or alliance between the two countries was not actually signed until 1894.

The Triple Alliance between Germany, Austria, and Italy was made in 1882.

FROM The Times, NOVEMBER 1, 1899.

Your Paris Correspondent says that ever since 1891 he has maintained that the Franco-Russian Alliance was very fortunate for England, because, in case of conflict between the Dual and the Triple Alliance, she could turn the scale in favour of either. But suppose that England were to turn the scale in favour of the Dual Alliance of France and Russia, what then? Why, when they had thus been enabled to cripple Germany, France and Russia could, and would, throw their whole combined and uncounteracted force on the British Empire. The very fear of Germany in Europe withholds France from us in Africa and Russia from us in Asia; and if in a moment of irritation England should ever succumb to the temptation of using these two Powers against Germany she would be like Samson, who took hold of the two pillars to destroy himself with the Philistines. October 26, 1899.

THE TAXATION OF THE TRANSVAAL The South African War lasted from October 12, 1899, to May 31, 1902. Before it was over a proposal was made to the effect that the Transvaal and Orange Free State (which had been declared to be annexed to Great Britain as colonies in the summer of 1900) should pay a special contribution towards the cost of the war. Nevertheless, the final peaceterms of May 1902 secured the Boers from such payment; on the contrary, the British Government gave a free grant of three million pounds sterling as a contribution to the post-war work of reconstruction. FROM The Times, DECEMBER 18, 1900.

With the utmost surprise I have read the recent debates in the House of Commons, in which all

parties alike applaud the sentiments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he says that the Transvaal, and of course, if possible, the Orange River Colony, shall make some contribution towards the cost of this war, and that the whole cost shall not be thrown on the taxpayers of this country. If these States had been given their independence, it would not have been surprising that, having attacked us, they should have had to purchase their freedom by a war indemnity. But they have been annexed as colonies, and to tax colonies without representation, and therefore without their consent, is to repeat the very mistake which lost us our American colonies.

The historical parallel is very close. Immediately after the peace of 1763 Grenville brought before Parliament his proposal to tax the American colonies, urging that 63 millions had been added to the National Debt, largely for the successful war against the French in America, and that it was reasonable that the Americans should be taxed for its repayment. It was plausibly argued that taxation was no tyranny, that the Sovereign by Parliamentary requisition had the right in England to impose taxes on the colonies, that they who are subject to laws are liable to taxes, and that, therefore, it was just that, in return for the immense expenditure in peace and war, by land and sea, incurred by England for the sake of America, the American colonists should be taxed. But the Americans simply replied that they should not be taxed by a Parliament in which they were not represented. By the sword they established the principle of no taxation without representation; and in doing so they deprived this country, not only of the power of taxing them, but of governing them at all.

With this parallel before us, how can a Parliament in England try to tax colonies in South Africa? What Grenville and others said in the last century

the Chancellor of the Exchequer and others are repeating now, with no greater plausibility, and without England having now done for South Africa any more than England did then for North America. The answer is the same, no taxation without representation. It is an answer of principle; it is therefore irresistible. What is more, it is the answer of English history. The greatness of the House of Commons is founded on the refusal of the English people to be taxed without its consent. Is England, then, going to impose taxes on South Africa without its consent? Finally, the very same principle was the occasion of this very war. England declared that the Uitlanders should not be taxed without representation by the Transvaal. Is she going to eat her words, and declare that the Transvaal shall be taxed without representation by England? If so, England must expect that what happened in North America will happen again in South Africa.

Amidst the passions raised by the present war, it may do good to quote what two great Englishmen said in the former war. Pitt said in the House of Commons that the kingdom had no right to lay a tax on the colonies'. Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations said that

'Great Britain is perhaps, since the world began, the only 'State which, as it has extended its Empire, has only increased ' its expense without once augmenting its resources. Other 'States have generally disburdened themselves upon their subject and subordinate provinces of the most considerable part of the expense of defending the Empire. Great Britain 'has hitherto suffered her subject and subordinate provinces to disburden themselves upon her of almost this whole 'expense.'

It will be found that this traditional policy is the wise plan, because it is the only chance of conciliating South Africa. It is also the fair plan, because on account of the great profits realized by Englishmen through investments in South Africa the English

Government gets its legitimate share by taxation levied in England itself.

FROM The Times, DECEMBER 19, 1900.

As in your leading article this morning you ask the question whether I maintain that no revenue should be raised in the Transvaal for any purposes whatever until there is a representative system, I hasten to answer that I do not, and to explain that, no doubt by my fault, you misunderstand my letter. I do not mean that, as there is at present no representative assembly in the Transvaal colony, there ought to be no taxes for the government of the colony, but that, as there are no representatives of the colony in the Parliament of England, there ought to be no taxation of the colony for paying war expenses which have been voted by that Parliament. The Crown Government in the colony will, of course, levy taxes to be expended in that colony for its development, until it is ready for representative institutions. But it would be a very different thing to proceed to levy taxes of any kind whatever in the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies in order to send money to England to cover in part the expenses of the war undertaken by England herself. It is here where the American parallel comes in. Such a tribute to an Imperial Government, whether levied in ancient times by the Great King on the provinces of the Persian Empire, and by Athens on the cities of the Athenian Empire, or in modern times levied by Spain in the form of a tax on precious metals discovered in her colonies, or attempted by England in the American colonies in the last century, or proposed to be attempted now in the South African colonies, always has been, and will be, a ruinous blunder, because it produces a disaffected population, which has not voted such a tribute or contribution-call it what we will-to be

raised in one part of the world, and used, or abused, in another.

I only wish a stronger voice than mine could be raised against this ill-advised proposal to exact a tribute to England from her two latest colonies. December 18.

FROM The Times, DECEMBER 29, 1900. Mr. Edmund Kimber's letter, which appears in your columns of the 26th inst., expresses the very spirit of despotism which it is imperative to avoid if England is to retain a permanent hold on the affections of her South African colonies. His motto is Vae victis. He advises his country to act the part of Napoleon. It is also likely enough that England could have elected to treat the Transvaal and her ally, according to his wishes, as conquered countries to be trampled down in Napoleonic fashion. She could at any rate have charged them as foreign countries with a war indemnity, as I admitted in my letter of the 18th inst.

But from the first England has declared her intention to act in a different spirit, to treat her enemies as colonies, to aim at gradually making them part of a South African federation of representative Governments, to let bygones be bygones, to shake hands and be friends, to pursue a policy of conciliation. She has begun to realize this benevolent intention by constituting the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies. Whatever they may have been before, they are now like any other colonies, whether in Africa, or in Australia, or in America, or in any other part of the British Empire.

In these circumstances the simple question arises how England is to attach these colonies to herself as she desires. The answer is as simple as the question, because it is founded on human nature. England can establish a system by which a tribute or