strength to some rival power, either more despotic or closer at hand,
which might not always be so unambitious or so pacific as Great
Britain. It at least keeps the markets of the different countries
open to one another, and prevents that mutual exclusion by hostile
tariffs, which none of the great communities of mankind, except
England, have yet completely outgrown. And in the case of the British
possessions it has the advantage, especially valuable at the present
time, of adding to the moral influence, and weight in the councils of
the world, of the Power which, of all in existence, best understands
liberty- and whatever may have been its errors in the past, has
attained to more of conscience and moral principle in its dealings
with foreigners than any other great nation seems either to conceive
as possible or recognise as desirable. Since, then, the union can only
continue, while it does continue, on the footing of an unequal
federation, it is important to consider by what means this small
amount of inequality can be prevented from being either onerous or
humiliating to the communities occupying the less exalted position.

  The only inferiority necessarily inherent in the case is that the
mother country decides, both for the colonies and for herself, on
questions of peace and war. They gain, in return, the obligation on
the mother country to repel aggressions directed against them; but,
except when the minor community is so weak that the protection of a
stronger power is indispensable to it, reciprocity of obligation is
not a full equivalent for non-admission to a voice in the
deliberations. It is essential, therefore, that in all wars, save
those which, like the Caffre or New Zealand wars, are incurred for the
sake of the particular colony, the colonists should not (without their
own voluntary request) be called on to contribute anything to the
expense, except what may be required for the specific local defence of
their ports, shores, and frontiers against invasion. Moreover, as
the mother country claims the privilege, at her sole discretion, of
taking measures or pursuing a policy which may expose them to
attack, it is just that she should undertake a considerable portion of
the cost of their military defence even in time of peace; the whole of
it, so far as it depends upon a standing army.

  But there is a means, still more effectual than these, by which, and
in general by which alone, a full equivalent can be given to a smaller
community for sinking its individuality, as a substantive power
among nations, in the greater individuality of a wide and powerful
empire. This one indispensable and, at the same time, sufficient
expedient, which meets at once the demands of justice and the
growing exigencies of policy, is to open the service of Government
in all its departments, and in every part of the empire, on
perfectly equal terms, to the inhabitants of the Colonies. Why does no
one ever hear a breath of disloyalty from the Islands in the British
Channel? By race, religion, and geographical position they belong less
to England than to France. But, while they enjoy, like Canada and
New South Wales, complete control over their internal affairs and
their taxation, every office or dignity in the gift of the Crown is
freely open to the native of Guernsey or Jersey. Generals, admirals,
peers of the United Kingdom, are made, and there is nothing which
hinders prime ministers to be made, from those insignificant
islands. The same system was commenced in reference to the Colonies
generally by an enlightened Colonial Secretary, too early lost, Sir
William Molesworth, when he appointed Mr. Hinckes, a leading
Canadian politician, to a West Indian government. It is a very shallow
view of the springs of political action in a community which thinks
such things unimportant because the number of those in a position
actually to profit by the concession might not be very considerable.
That limited number would be composed precisely of those who have most
moral power over the rest: and men are not so destitute of the sense
of collective degradation as not to feel the withholding of an
advantage from even one person, because of a circumstance which they
all have in common with him, an affront to all. If we prevent the
leading men of a community from standing forth to the world as its
chiefs and representatives in the general councils of mankind, we
owe it both to their legitimate ambition, and to the just pride of the
community, to give them in return an equal chance of occupying the
same prominent position in a nation of greater power and importance.

  Thus far of the dependencies whose population is in a sufficiently
advanced state to be fitted for representative government. But there
are others which have not attained that state, and which, if held at
all, must be governed by the dominant country, or by persons delegated
for that purpose by it. This mode of government is as legitimate as
any other if it is the one which in the existing state of civilisation
of the subject people most facilitates their transition to a higher
stage of improvement. There are, as we have already seen, conditions
of society in which a vigorous despotism is in itself the best mode of
government for training the people in what is specifically wanting
to render them capable of a higher civilisation. There are others,
in which the mere fact of despotism has indeed no beneficial effect,
the lessons which it teaches having already been only too completely
learnt; but in which, there being no spring of spontaneous improvement
in the people themselves, their almost only hope of making any steps
in advance depends on the chances of a good despot. Under a native
despotism, a good despot is a rare and transitory accident: but when
the dominion they are under is that of a more civilised people, that
people ought to be able to supply it constantly. The ruling country
ought to be able to do for its subjects all that could be done by a
succession of absolute monarchs, guaranteed by irresistible force
against the precariousness of tenure attendant on barbarous
despotisms, and qualified by their genius to anticipate all that
experience has taught to the more advanced nation. Such is the ideal
rule of a free people over a barbarous or semi-barbarous one. We
need not expect to see that ideal realised; but unless some approach
to it is, the rulers are guilty of a dereliction of the highest
moral trust which can devolve upon a nation: and if they do not even