The indefiniteness of our Colonial policy in past years was due to the deplorable fact that during a great part of the reign of Queen Victoria a powerful school existed among us which desired to divorce the Colonies from the Mother Country. In the year I863 Mr. Goldwin Smith, then Regius Professor of History in the University of Oxford — to which mirabile dictu, he had been appointed on the advice of Lord Derby, the brilliant leader of the Conservative party — published a work called The Empire. This year (I863), as Monsieur Ollivier, au coeur léger, aptly observes, happens to mark the prominent appearance of Bismarck on the stage of history. Such was the moment chosen by the Oxford Professor to produce a book — which was received at the time with no little approval — not only advocating the disruption of the British Empire, but actually advising the surrender of important military positions. It is yet profitable to read the obsolete language of the learned Professor, if only to note how cruelly events hastened to stultify his prophecies and to derive entertainment from the self-opinionated insistence with which he announced the decline of conquering tendencies among nations. Within ten years of his startling discovery there followed in quick succession the annexation by Prussia of the Elbe duchies, Bismarck’s assault upon Austria and the tearing of Alsace and Lorraine from France: a series of events which not only transformed the peace-loving Continent of which the Professor dreamed into something very like a military cantonment, but created a united Germany which, having exhausted her military ambition, is now seeking new worldsto conquer on the ocean. The gradual decay in England of the shallow and pusillanimous doctrines preached by the Manchester School and by Professors who profess, without understanding, English history, has not been the work of English politicians. It is largely due to Colonial influence. The truer and more manly creed of national responsibility and imperial duty upheld by statesmen of sense and action like the late Sir John Macdonald, Queen Victoria’s Prime Minister in Canada, made steady way throughout the Empire. Its acceptance was followed by the growth of self-consciousness amongst those free nations which, for want of a better name, we still call self-governing colonies. Our leading thinkers and public men, with the conspicuous and honourable exceptions of Lord Rosebery, Mr. W. E. Forster and Sir John Seeley, did little or nothing to bring these communities into closer touch with one another or with the Mother Country until the day Mr. Chamberlain accepted the office of Colonial Minister. Incredible as it now seems, some of our most eminent statesmen positively desired to sever the ties between the Colonies and the Mother Country. In I873, e.g., Mr. Gladstone told one of the writers of this article that he considered it would be a grand thing for England if she could get rid of the colonies and he quoted Sir George Cornewall Lewis, who passed for a sagacious man, as being of the same opinion. Justice compels us to recognise that the Liberals were not peculiar in their blindness and perversity on colonial affairs. There remains on record the amazing sentence which Mr. Disraeli wrote to Lord Malmesbury during this benighted period: „These wretched Colonies will all be independent in a few years and are a millstone round our necks.’ Even Mr. Goschen was once a Little Englander, while Professor Parkin affirms that Lord Thring (Parliamentary counsel to successive Cabinets) at one time actually prepared a Separation Bill. But in spite of all political discouragement the Colonies clung closer to the Mother Country and the idea of severing a sacred tie became more and more distasteful to their piety. With the spread of education and the growth of wider knowledge of English literature and English history, our kinsmen beyond the seas took increasing pride in the association of their new land with the old country and in their own identity with the stock of the barons of Runnymede, the yeomen of Cressy and Agincourt, the sailors of Trafalgar and the enlightened and patriotic statesmen to whom the Anglo-Saxon world owes the writ of Habeas Corpus and the Bill of Rights. Their imagination was no less fired and their deepest feelings of reverence were stirred when they saw the noble example of unswerving public duty which was given to the world by the Sovereign to whom they owed allegiance; and when during the royal progress through London on June 22, I897, the representatives of these splendid young nations sere seen in attendance on their revered ruler, the British Empire and, so to speak, found itself. From that moment the little Englander, who had been an anxiety, ceased to be a serious factor in English public affairs. We could therefore afford to be amused at the announcement of the Berliner Post (which is not professedly a comic paper), at the opening of the present war (October I3, I899), that in the British colonies’ a pronounced movement in favour of separation from the Mother Country is noticeable’! The conduct of these daughter nations during our South African struggle has driven home and clenched the object-lesson of Queen Victoria’s Jubilee and the people of England most thoroughly realise that the attention of their statesmen can no longer be exclusively devoted to the domestic affairs of two little islands, but that henceforward in all questions of policy we must give a close and sympathetic consideration, not only to the interests, but also to the feelings of the people of Greater Britain. Closely connected with the subject of inter-imperial relations is the policy which the British Empire should pursue as regards other nations and empires.