^ ^

SOCIAL DARWINISM AND BRITISH IMPERIALISM, 1870-1900

by

RAY HALL BYRD, B.A.

A THESIS

IN

HISTORY

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty

of Texas Tech University in
Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for
the Degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Approved

Accepted

J D^ce/nbe^,/ 1971
 T3
1971
No, 22 â CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 1
I. T H E BENTHAMITE INFLUENCE 3
II. HERBERT SPENCER 29
III. SOCIAL THEORY A N D IMPERIALISM 65
CONCLUSION 102
BIBLIOGRAPHY 104

11
 INTRODUCTION

In discussing the ideological interrelationship between

Social Darwinism and British imperialistic thought during
the period 1870-1900, there is often presumed a close asso-
ciation based upon their common attribute, the "might is
right" principle. For example, after expounding on the domi-
nant "power politics" principle in late nineteenth century
Europe, C. J. H. Hayes writes in A Generation of Materi-
alism, "the timelessness of Darwinism . . . established
it . , . as the chief conditioning philosophy of Europe in
the 1870's." He expects the reader to see a logical asso-
ciation between Social Darwinism and the mainstream of
British imperialistic thought of the late nineteenth cen-
tury. This thesis seems to have some validity as one
studies the power politics of the two Conservative prime
ministers of the period, Disraeli and Salisbury. During
this period, England went to war to protect and strengthen
her Indian Empire. Furthermore England expanded into
Africa and subjected other people to her control. It would
indeed seem an easy matter to superimpose the prevalent
Darwinian theory as a justification of these actions. It
is this relationship that will be pursued in this study.

C. J. H. Hayes, A Generation of Materialism, 1871-

1900 (New York, 1941), p. 12.
1
and it will be surprisingly revealed that there existed an

animosity between the two doctrines, not the peaceful co-

existence that some writers would like to portray.

Darwinism arose in the mid-VictoriciJi age and was
quickly adapted to the prev.iiling social theory as expounded
by the Manchester School. The Manchester School supported
a laissez-faire philosophy in domestic and foreign affairs.
To the mid-Victorian mind struggle was associated with the
pseudo scientific and economic competition in England's in-
dustrial society. Thus Darwinism was interpreted as indi-
vidual Darwinism, that is, with the thesis that progress
was determined by the struggle between individuals in the
society. Obviously for the theory of Darwinism to evolve
from this framework to an imperialistic concept a gradual
change had to come about in the actual definition of Social
Darwinism. Collective Darwinism, the thesis that progress
was determined by the struggle between nations, took time
to develop in a mentality that had accepted individual
Darwinism. The process was complex, but interesting, and
deserving of more study than it has received.
 CHAPTER I

THE BENTHAMITE INFLUENCE

The antaqonism betwecn Social Darwinism and British

imperialistic dov^trine durinn the ninetcunth century can
be traced to their conflicting relationship with Benthamism.
Darwinism was greatly influenced by and was incorporated
into the Benthamite school, but it was the reaction against
Benthamite colonial theory that helped to create greater
interest in formal imperialism after 1870.

The founder of the Benthamite school was Jeremy Ben-

tham. Bentham propagandized the rationalism of the Enlighten-
ment and interwove the concepts of the classical economists
into this rationalistic framework. From rationalism he
postulated the individual as the ultimate reality. Man,
beginning only with himself, developed a unity of all knowl-
edge, and thus a verbal revelation from God was considered
nonsensical. For man's rationality to operate, the universe
was assumed to be a closed uniform system. Thus, the mir-
acles of Christianity were considered impossible because
they were not observable in the nineteenth century.

Politically Bentham's rationalism incorporated two

main axioms--"the greatest happiness of the greatest number"

Crane Brinton, English Political Thought in the

Nineteenth Century (New York, 1962), pp. 15-24, originally
published in 1933.
 2
principle and laissez-faire. Since each individual was the

best judge of his own happiness, his social responsibility

was to seek his egoistic interest. Because some individuals
wouid not seek happiness in a rational manner and thus di-
minish the happiness of the whole community, government
could intervene to protect society. The philosophical basis
for such intervention into individual rights was democracy;
government could identify with the interests of the commu-
3
nity since the majority elected the representatives. This
"artificial identification" did not extend to the economic
sphere. Economically government was to adopt a policy of
laissez-faire; thus society could not assure to its members
"a just share in the product of the labor of society." Ac-
cording to the doctrines of the classical economists this
was "spontaneously provided for by the mechanism of competi-
4
tion." The government's responsibility consisted only of
the removal of governmental restrictions that would inter-
. . 5
fere with economic competition.

2
D. C. Somervell, English Thought in the Nineteenth
Century (2nd ed.; London, 1929), pp. 42-45.
Eli Halévy, The Growth of Philosophical Radicalism,
trans. by Mary Morris (London, 1928), p. 489; Frederick
Copleston, A History of Philosophy (8 vols.; Westminister,
Maryland, 1966) , VII, 13, 14.
Halévy, Philosophical Radicalism, p. 498.
Copleston, History of Philosophy, VII, 13.
 In the earlier Benthamite writings classical economics
was only part of a general philosophy, but in the process
of attacking the aristocratic structure of the eighteenth
century, Benthamite thought, although not the practice, v;as
set in the mold oí iaissez-faire. The formcr Westminister
School, which emphasized the artificial identification of
interests by the government, was replaced by the Manchester
School. The Manchester School emphasized the spontaneous
adjustment of interests and was very hostile to most legis-
7
lation. In the minds of the ordinary mid-Victorian politi-
cians and the general public the works of the classical
economists became laws of nature that could not be broken
without disastrous repercussions.
It was one of these classical economists' works that
influenced Charles Darwin's development of the concept of
natural selection. This work was Thomas Robert Malthus'
Principle of Population (1798) which justified laissez-
faire with two postulates. First, population when unchecked
increased in a geometrical ratio, and second, the subsis-
o
tence for man, food, increased in an arithmetical ratio.

Wilson H. Coates, "Benthamism, Laissez-Faire, and

Collectivism," Journal of the History of Ideas, XI (1950),
358-363.
7Halevy,
' Philosophical Radicalism, p. 514.
o
Thomas Robert Malthus, An Essay on the Principle of
Population, as it affects the future improvement of Society,
If the population was not checked within the limits of the

food supply, then man would have to struggle against the

forces of nature and against those of the same species.

Concerning the latter struyyie Malthus revealed, "And when

they fell in with any tribes like their own, the contest

was a struggle for existence [italic mine]; [sic] and they

fought with a desperate courage, inspired by the reflection,

that death was the punishment of defeat, and life the prize
9
of victory." Politically he argued that laws attempting

to improve the general condition of the poor would only in-

crease their population without increasing their food sup-

ply; therefore legislation would only bring self-destruction

to the lower classes. Consequently, the best policy for the

government was laissez-faire and a minimum of social legis-

lation.

Darwin asserted that it was Malthus' thesis that influ-

enced him in his formulation of the doctrine of natural se-

lection:
In October 1838, that is, fifteen months after
I had begun my systematic enquiry, I happened to
read for amusement Malthus on Population, and be-
ing well prepared to appreciate the struggle for
existence which everywhere goes on from

with remarks on the speculations of Mr. Godwin, Mr. Cordorcet,

and otJier writers (New York, 1965), p. 18.

^lbid., pp. 47-48.

•^^lbid., pp. 83-88.

 long-continued observation of the habits of ani-
mals and plants, it at once struck me that under
these circumstances favourable variations would
tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to
be destroyed. The result of this would be the
formation of new species. Here, then, I had at
last got a theory by which to work.H

Alfred Russel Wallace, Darwin's co-founder of natural selec-

tion, also claimed that he had been influenced by Malthus'
book. 12 Both perhaps overrated the individual influence of
Malthus; it was perhaps more the intellectual and political
climate of the Benthamites, as manifested by Malthus, that
influenced their thoughts. Darwin was a Liberal, which was
the political expression of the Benthamite philosophy. He
professed great admiration for William Gladstone, the Lib-
eral leader in the late nineteenth century, and in The
Qrigin of Species (1859) he incorporated the utilitarian
philosophy of his time. He expressed the doctrine of ex-
treme laissez-faire in The Descent of Man (1871):
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon
eliminated; and those that survive commonly ex-
hibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised

Charles Darwin, The Autobiography of Charles Darwin,

1809-1882, ed. by Nora Barlow (New York, 1959), p- 120; See
Grant Allen, Charles Darwin; His Life and Work (New York,
[n.d.]), pp. 29-30.
12
Alfred Russel Wallace, Alfred Russel Wallace; Letters
and Reminiscences, ed. by James Marchant (New York, 1916),
ppT 91, 95, 260; Patrick Matthew in 1831 and Herbert Spencer
in 1852 enunciated natural selection in the sphere of man.
Both based their idea upon the Malthusian principle. Allen,
Charles Darwin, pp. 36-37.
 8
men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check
the process of elimination; we build asylums for
the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we insti-
tute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their
utmost skill to save the life of every one to
the last moment. There is reason to believe
that vacination has preserved thousands, who from
a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed
to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised
societies propagate their kind. No one who has
attended to the breeding of domestic animals will
doubt that this must be highly injurious to the
race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of
care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the de-
generation of a domestic race; but excepting in
the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so iq-
norant as to allow his worst animals to breed.13

It must be pointed out that the Darwinian concept of laissez-

faire did not really represent the laissez-faire taught by
the Benthamites. For in the Darwinian system, as expressed
in The Origin of Species, competition was a constant strug-
gle for survival in which the fittest survived and the
weakest died, while in the Benthamite system the weakest
struggled, but he was not eliminated. The competition of
the ciassical economists and the Benthamites was an artifi-
cial competition, being hedged in by many legal restrictions.
In the Benthamite system there was always the assumption
that the government could intervene in the competition.
Besides identifying Darwinism with the economic strug-
gle for existence, Liberals also saw in Darwinism a

13
Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in
Relation to Sex (New Yo Fk [1936] ) , p. 501, originally pub-
lished in 1871, bound with The Origin of Species.
verification of the doctrine of progress. Bentham assumed
the doctrine of progress, but he did not develop it. Evolu-
tionists seemed to have the philosophical basis for progress
in Darwin's system. Darwin expressed the doctrine of prog-
ress in The Origin of Species: "And as natural selection
works solely by and for the good of each being, all corporeal
and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfec-
tion." Darwin also stated that the evolutionary process
was evolving toward the "greatest happiness" principle. It
has to be pointed out, though, that Darwin's writings con-
cerning the "greatest happiness" principle are very
nebulous.

Herbert Spencer, the evolutionary philosopher, made

progress in his system a necessity; the universe was a
machine, and thus progress was predetermined to be the des-
tiny of the universe.^'^ ^^^^ ^^ain, as with Darwin, Spencer

14
Walter E. Houghton, The Victorian Frame of Mind, 1830-
1870 (New Haven, 1957), pp. 36-38.
15
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, By Means of
Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in
the Struggle for Life (6th ed.; New York [1936]), p. 373,
originally published in 1859; See Darwin to Lyell, no date,
in Beatrice Webb, My Apprenticeship (New York, 1926), p. 88.
Darwin, The Descent of Man, pp. 489-490; Jacques
Barzun, Darwin, Marx, Wagner; Critique of a Heritage (Garden
City, 1958), p. 76, originally published in 1941.
17
J. B. Bury, The Idea of Progress, An nquiry into Its
Origin and Growth (London, 1920), p. 338. "
 10
postulated that the ultimate purpose of the evolutionary
process was the Benthamite doctrine of producing the great-
est amount of happiness for the greatest number of indi-
viduals.

Both Spencer and Darwin based progress primarily upon

intra-state struggle; thus both would be considered individ-
ual Darwinists. They developed Darwinism as a product of
the Manchester School, and as long as Darwinism was embedded
in this school, collective Darwinism, the doctrine that
progress was based upon inter-state struggle and the Dar^in-
ian theory that could have application to imperialistic
thought, could not be postulated. Darwin did, however, show
the potentiality for collective Darwinism by adopting some
of Walter Bagehot's concepts in The Descent of Man.
In Physics and Politics or Thoughts on the Application
of the Principles of "Natural Selection" and "Inheritance"
to Political Society (1867), Bagehot tried to incorporate
natural selection and Benthamite individualism into a two
step procedure for the formation of a nation. The first
step was the development of "a cake of custom." This gave
form to a nation by establishing its laws and morals, for
the "cake of custom" molded a group to believe basically in
the same concepts and revealed to each member his

18
Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revo-
lution (Garden City, 1959), pp. 379-380.
 11
responsibility in the group. 19 The group was emphasized;

obedience was demanded, because individuality would destroy

20
the group. This first stage of development unified the
group for the struggle of the survival of the fittest
against individuals and other groups. Thus military strength
was the criteria for progress, for it indicated intellectual
development and the degree of unification. The second
stage in the development of a nation was the evolving of a
democracy. In a democratic society individualism, which
was very important in Benthamite liberalism, could develop.^^
In The Descent of Man Darwin, in his effort to demon-
strate that there were no qualitative differences between
man and the animals, had to deal with the origin of morals.
In answering this question he adopted Bagehot's thesis,
23
thus c r e a t i n g t h e f o u n d a t i o n of c o l l e c t i v e D a r w i n i s m .

19
W a l t e r B a g e h o t , P h y s i c s and P o l i t i c s or T h o u g h t s o n
the A p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e P r i n c i p l e s o f "Natural S e l e c t i o n "
and " I n h e r i t a n c e " t o P o l i t i c a l S o c i e t y (New Y o r k , 1 9 4 8 ) , p .
2 8 , o r i g i n a l l y p u b l i s h e d in 1 8 6 7 .
^^ b i d . , p p . 2 9 - 3 0 .
21
Ibid., pp. 52-86.
^^lbid., pp. 202-203.

^^Darwin, The Descent of Man, pp. 487-498, 500, 543;

See Robert Clark, Darwin; Before and After, An Evangelical
Assessment (Chicago, 1967) , pp. 102-103, originally pub-
lished in 1966.
 12
Darwin speculated that the formation of morals and
laws, Bagehot's "cake of custom," resulted from the struggle
between nations. In the evolutionary process, there devel-
oped an instinct in the individual to transcend his per-

sonal interest and to be concerned with the general good of

the community. 24 An mdividual who would submit his will
to the demands of the group would have a better chance of
survival than the total individualist. The nation that mani-
fested this social quality in the highest degree, that is,
the nation which subjected intra-state struggle to inter-
state struggle in the highest degree among the most members,
would be considered the strongest nation.25 By this state-
ment Darwin laid the foundation of collective Darwinism.
Together with Bagehot, Darwin seemed to believe, al-
though it is not clear, that collective Darwinism was appli-
cable primarily to uncivilized societies. This is speculated
from his doctrine of war. Darwin seriously considered war
as a natural process of progress, but Wallace convinced
? fi
him not to be dogmatic about this doctrine. Thus Darwin
stated only that a short war was beneficial, because it

^^C. Darwin to A. R. Wallace, May 28, 1864, in Wallace,

Alfred Russel Wallace, p. 127; Arthur Keith, Darwin Re-
valued (London, 1955), p. 260.
^^Darwin, The Descent of Man, p. 498.
^^A. R. Wallace to C. Darwin, May 24, 1865, and C.
Darwin to A. R. Wallace, June 15, 1864, in Wallace,
Alfred Russel Wallace, pp. 128-132.
 13

brought out the social and moral qualities of a nation,

while a long war would destroy the fittest in battle, and

27
the weakest, who remained at home, would survive. Thus

Darwin returned to inelividual Darwinism, where intra-state

struggle was more important thcin the inter-state struggle.

In The Descent of Man he stated, "With highly civilised

nations continued progress depends in a subordinate degree

on natural selection; for such nations do not supplant and

exterminate one another as do savage tribes." 28 For within
these nations the state boundaries were recognized as super-

ficial, and in consequence the social instinct was extended

29
to all men and races. Thus there is a shallow representa-

tion of Benthamite cosmopolitanism. Natural selection

within highly civilized nations occurred primarily between

the individual members of the community and not between the

communities. 30 But he also pointed out that there was
natural selection between civilized and uncivilized nations

and prophesied that the civilized nations would exterminate

31
and replace savage races.

27
Barzun, Darwin, Marx, Wagner, p- 98.
28
Darwin, The Descent of Man, p. 509.
^^lbid., p. 492.

^°Ibid., p. 509.

^-^lbid. , p. 521.
 14
In The Descent of Man Darwin presented an equivocal
doctrine in which there were sections that defined the indi-
vidual Darwinian philosophy and sections that supported the
coliective Darwinian position, but the emphasis was on the
latter. In general, one would say that Darwin seemed to
devalue the individual by placing man's importance in a one
to one correspondence with his position in society. Francis
Galton, Darwin's cousin, pointed out, "The life of the indi-
vidual is treated as of absolutely no importance, while the
race is as everything; Nature being wholly careless of the

former except as a contributor to the maintenance and evolu-

32
tion or the latter." In order to maintain his own per-
sonal conviction in the primacy of intra-state struggle,
Darwin could only answer, "Nature does not more carefully
regard races than individuals, as . . . evidenced by the
multitude of races and species which have become extinct.
Would it not be truer to say that Nature cares only for the
superior individuals and then makes her new and better
races?"

32
Editor's note in Charles Darwin, More Letters of
Charles Darwin, A Record of His Work in a Series of
Hitlierto Unpublished Letters, ed. by Francis Darwin (2
vols.; New York, 1903), II, 44.
33
C. Darwin to F. Galton, January 14, 1873, in Ibid,
II, 43-44.
 15
Darwin in The Descent of Man modified natural selec-
tion making possible the formulation of a collective Darwin-
ian doctrine. In fact, Galton developed a movement, the
eugenic movcment, which advocated state centralization and
state control of the institutions of marriage and family.
He urged that a record should be kept of the superior fam-
ilies in Engiand so that these families could be encouraged
to breed while the inferior families would be discouraged
34
from breeding. This movement, which could be called the
Darwinian counterpart of socialism, became a serious rival
to individual Darwinism once the weaknesses of the Man-
chester School was revealed. Both individual Darwinism and
eugenic Darwinism were social theories that were not thought
of as policies for international relationships.
The British imperialistic movement of the late nine-
teenth century could have incorporated collective Darwinism
as an international policy. But it was also an anti-
Manchester movement, because this imperialism was national-
istic, while Benthamite liberalism, theoretically, was
individualistic and cosmopolitan. State boundaries to the
Benthamites were superficial and did not have any real value • »

This concept encouraged a policy of free trade and, theoret-

ically, a complacency concerning the breaking up of the

"^"^Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution, pp.

402-403.
 16
colonial empire. It was thought inevitable that the col-

onies would become independent as demonstrated by the Amer-

35
ican colonies. The Manchester School re-enforced this

doctrme with the writings of the classical economists, who

championed laisse::-faire in forcign affairs as well as in
domestic affairs. From these writings, the Benthamites
argued that the colonies cost money and were unsafe for
military reasons. The colonies had to depend for defense
on England, without which they would be totally defenseless
and an easy prey for England's enemies.^^

Richard Cobden and John Bright, the chief political

leaders of the Manchester School, and Goldwin Smith, its
most brilliant literary exponent, expressed the Manchester
School's attitude toward the colonies. Cobden wrote Goldwin
Smith in 1836, "The colonies, army, navy, and church are
with the Corn Laws, merely accessories to our aristocratic
government. John Bull has his work cut out for the next 50
years to purge his house of these impurities." 37 In 1842

35
C. A. Bodelsen, Studies in Mid-Victorian mperialism
(London, 1960), pp. 13-16, 81, originally published in 1924;
William L. Strauss, Joseph Chamberlain and the Theory of
Imperialism (Washington, D.C., 1942), p. Ti
James Anthony Froude, Short Studies on Great Subjects
(4 vols.; London, 1890), II, 187-191; A. P. Thornton, The
Imperial Idea and Its Enemies, A Study in British Power
(New York, 1959), p. 11.
37
Bodelsen, Mid-Victorian mperialism, p. 33.
 17
he wrote, "The colonial system, with all its dazzling ap-
peals to the passions of the people, can never be got rid
of except by the indirect process of Free Trade, which will
gradually and impcrceptibly loosen the bands which unite
our colonies to us by a mistaken notion of self-interest. ""^^
John Bright stated in the House of Commons, "We are talking
folly when we say that the Government of this country would
send either ships or men to make an effectual defense of
Canada against the power of the United States, . . . I do
not object to separation in the least; I believe it would
39
be better for us and better for them." Smith proclaimed
most emphatically that the colonies were of no earthly good
to England:

The time was when the universal prevalence of

commercial monopoly made it well worth our
while to hold colonies in dependence for the
sake of commanding their trade. But that time
is gone. Trade is everywhere free; and this
expensive and perilous connexion has entirely
survived its sole legitimate cause. It is
time that we should recognise the change that
has come over the world.^^
The colonies, he argued, only weakened England's position
in Europe because she had to stretch her military force in

bid.
39
Great Britain, Parliament, Hansard's Parliamentary
Debates, Series 3, CXCIX, 211; See James L. Sturgis, John
Bright and the Empire (London, 1969), pp. 101-117.
Bodelsen, Mid-Victorian mperialism, pp. 53-54.
 18
the effort to defend them. In addition, this defense of
the colonies by England would not be strong, could not
stand against powerful enemies, and was expensive for
England. Evcn as a source of emigration the colonies were
useless since most of the emigration went to the United
States and not to the colonies. Besides, in the process of
emigration, the strongest and the fittest went while the
weak and the old remained in England; thus emigration only
dramed the best men from England. 41
In most of the arguments of the Benthamites, it was not
concluded that the colonies should be immediately emanci-
pated. On June 25, 1862, George Lewis, the Secretary of
State for War, stated a typical Benthamite argument concern-
ing the emancipation of the colonies:
I, for one, can only say that I look forward
without apprehension--and, I may add, without
regret--to the time when Canada might become an
independent State; but I think it behoves England
not to cast Canada loose, or send her adrift be-
fore she has acquired sufficient strength to
assert her own independence.'^^
The Benthamites believed that it was the motherly duty of
England to see that the colonies were guided until they
were ready for independence, arguing that if they were
abandoned too soon they would flounder; the colonies were

^-^lbid.
"^^3 Hansard, CLXVIII, 860.
 19
believed to be predestined to a state of independence, and
it was the duty of England to prepare them for that moment.
This line of reasoning expressed the colonial concepts
ot V^/illiam Gladstone, who was regarded as a disciple of the
Manchester School. Gladstone compared colonies to organisms
which grew according to laws "stronger than the will of man."
As they grew their natures became essentially different, as
did a man when he grew out of the chiidhood stage. When a
colony reached its analogous maturity stage, history has
shown that "in every instance" separation from the mother
country was brought about "by war and bloodshed, involving
an inheritance of pain, hatred and shame." It was England's
responsibility to see that the separation from her colonies
would not follow the pattern of history, but would be the

result of a peaceful and friendly transaction, in the manner

43
as a man would leave the household of his parents. Glad-
stone argued that the colonies should be prepared for inde-
pendence by encouraging the growth of self-government and
self-defense. Liberalism should be taught to the colonies,
and when the colonies accepted and adopted liberalism, they
should then legally be given independence without any obli-
gation to the mother country.'^'^ He also believed that this

"^^3 Hansard, CC, 1900-1901.

^^Paul Knaplund, Gladstone and Britain's Imperial Pol-
icy (Hamden, Connecticut, 1966), pp. 65, 90, originally
published in 1927.
 20
policy would provide for the strongest empire, an empire
bonded by sentiment and voluntary action, but in the his-
torical context of his period, his policy was looked upon
as anti-imoerialistic; an empire bonded by a "union in
heart and character" was viewed as existentialiy no empire
at all.

It was the reaction to the Gladstonian concept of

empire that helped to initiate the imperialistic movement
of 1870 to 1900. In 1868, Gladstone formed the first Lib-
eral, as distinct from Whig, government. It was the first
government that could apply the Manchester creed to foreign
policy as it contained in its cabinet Lord Granville,
Colonial Secretary, John Bright, President of the Board of
Trade (the department next to the Colonial Office which
most frequently had to deal with colonial problems), and
Robert Lowe, Chancellor of the Exchequer (a department that
was extremely concerned with the expenditures of the col-
45
onies). They were all exponents of the Manchester School.
In his first ministry, Gladstone tried to apply the
Liberal creed. For example, the Cape of Good Hope received
responsible government, and Australia gained more control

45
R. L. Schuyler, "The Climax of Anti-Imperialism in
England," Political Science Quarterly, XXXVI (1921), 538-
549.
 21
of her tariff. Particular attention was paid to Glad-
stone's colonial policy when troops were recalled from such
responsibly governed colonies as Canada and New Zealand.^^
The withdrawal trom New Zealrind occurred at a time when New
Zealand was being afflicted by a dangerous Maoris uprising
in the North Island. The colonial government requested
that some Imperial troops be retained until the Maoris
could be suppressed. The tone of Granville's refusal
strained relations between the two governments as Granville
implied that New Zealand's native problem was brought upon
her because of her own foolishness. 4 8 Granville undiplo-
matically reported:

The present distress of the Colony arises mainly

from two circumstances: the discontent of the
Natives, consequent on the confiscation of their
land, and neglect of successive Governments to
place on foot a force sufficiently formidable to
overawe that discontent. [The real safety of the
colonists lay in] deliberately measuring their
own resources, and, at whatever immediate sacri-
fice, adjuring their policy to them.^^

46
Knaplund, Gladstone and Britain's mperial Policy,
p. 95.
47
bid., p. 125.
48
Bodelsen, Mid-Victorian Imperialism, p. 89.
49
J. R. M. Butler, "Imperial Questions in British
Politics, 1868-1880," in E. A. Benians, James Butler, C. E.
Carrington, eds., The Empire-Commonwealth, 1870-1919, Vol.
III of The Cambridge History of the British Empire (9 vols.
in 8; Cambridge, 1929-59), pp. 24-25.
 22
The refusal of Granville aroused the English public and
50
press to come to the support of New Zealand.

Gladstone's policy of withdrawal faced a great deal of

criticism. The colonists felt acj()rieved, because their
business had suffered on account of the withdrawal and be-
cause the outward visible connection with the mother coun-
try had been withdrawn. 51 Sir Charles Adderley proclaimed
in the House of Commons that the "withdrawal of the Imperial
troops from the colonies appeared to be one main subject of
dissatisfaction." 52
It was rumored that the government's actions in the
colonies, particularly in New Zealand, were examples of a
Gladstonian anti-imperialistic policy. The Spectator for
July 24, 1869 stated:
It is clear that Mr. Goldwin Smith's colonial
'policy,' the policy, that is, of shaking off
the colonies as too burdensome . . . has not
only been accepted by the existing Government,
but that they are acting on it. It is not only
New Zealand which is going to be dismissed, but
Australia, not only Australia, but the Canadian
Dominion, all that ring of Anglo-Saxon States
which, with a little trouble, a little patience

Bodelsen, Mid-Victorian mperialism, p. 91

^"''Thornton, The Imperial Idea and Its Enemies, p. 24;
Knaplund, Gladstone and Britain's Imperial PolicyT pp.
125-126.
^^3 Hansard, CLXXXV, 1190.
 23

. . . might be converted into a chain of faith-

ful and most powerful allies.^-^

The reaction to the belief that the Gladstonian govern-

ment was anti-imperialistic brought the empire into sight

as a public issue. The reaction was manifcsted in many

ways. In 1870, a petition to the Queen was presented by

104,000 working men in London urging that emigration be

encouraged and colonial ties strengthened. The petition

stated that the petitioners had "heard with alarm that Your

Majesty has been advised to give up the colonies, contain-

ing millions of acres which might be employed profitably

both to the colonies and to ourselves as fields of emigra-

tion." James Anthony Froude, a historian who was one of

the main propagandists of the imperialistic movement,

entered the ranks of the imperialists because he believed

55
that the government was going to set the colonies adrift.

On April 12, 1870, he wrote, "Gladstone and Company delib-

erately intend to shake off the Colonies. They are pri-

vately using their command of the situation to make the

separation inevitable."

^^Bodelsen, Mid-Victorian Imperialism, p. 89.

^"^Thornton, The Imperial Idea and Its Enemies, p. 45.

^^Froude, Short Studies, II, 182-183, 215.

^^Waldo Hilary Dunn, James Anthony Froude, A Biography

(2 vols.; Oxford, 1961-3), I, 353.
 24
It is quite certain that in the opinion of Mr.
Gladstone's Administration the colonies are
rather 'elements of weakness to us than of
strength, that they belong to themselves
rather than to us, and that any endeavour on
our }virt to develop their iesources or trans-
port the overflow of our peopLe there wili
be wasted effort and money thrown away.^^

Reaction to Gladstone's policies was also expressed in Par-

«

liament. On February 14, 1870, Lord Carnarvon, a former

Conservative Secretary of State for the Colonies, expressed
in the House of Lords that he had confirmation of the rumor
that Gladstone's Government was pursuing an anti-
imperialistic policy, and he "beg[ged] to enter [his] humble
and earnest protest against [this] course which [he] con-
ceive[d] to be ruinous to the honour and fatal to the best
interests of the Empire." 5 8 He stated that the Government
was following this course of action because of her Man-
^ ^ -^- 59
chester presuppositions.
The reaction against the Gladstone Government reached
its climax in the Conservative victory in the general elec-
tion of 1874. Benjamin Disraeli, the Conservative party
leader, believed that adding the popular plank of maintain-
ing the integrity of the Empire to the Conservative plat-
form was an important factor in the Conservative victory.

^^lbid., I, 354.
^^3 Hansard, CXCIX, 212-213.
59

^^Schuyler, "The Climax of Anti-Imperialism in England,"

p. 560.
 25
At a Conservative banquet at the Crystal Palace on June 24,
1872, Disraeli claimed that one of the main objectives of
the Conservative party was the preservation of the Empire.
He proclaimed that self-govornment could be conceded, but
it had to be "accompanied by an Imperiai tariff, by securi-
ties for the people of England for the enjoyment of the un-
appropriated lands which belonged to the Sovereign as their
trustee, and by a military code which should have precisely
defined the means and the responsibilities by which the
colonies should be defended, and by which, if necessary,

this country should call for aid from the colonies them-
61
selves." This statement contradicted the policy of Glad-
stone. Gladstone was working toward an empire bonded only
by sentiment and voluntary action, where cooperation would
be spontaneously provided.
In the period, 1870-1894, Gladstonian Liberals tried
to maintain this position, a position that helped to stereo-
type Darwinism as a doctrine of the Manchester School.
Herbert Spencer, a great admirer and follower of Gladstone,
especially made Darwinism a stronghold for the Manchester
School, a stronghold that did not come tumbling down until
the forceful criticisms of Thomas Huxley, Benjamin Kidd,
and Karl Pearson towards the end of the century. The

61
Bodelsen, Mid-Victorian Imperialism, p. 121.
 26
downfall of the Manchester School was required before col-
lective Darwinism could be used to justify an imperialistic
policy.

Imperialistic thought itsc^lf: had to bc changed before

collective Darwinism could be applied to it. The early im-
perialistic movement was to stop the supposedly anti-
imperialistic policy of Gladstone. It was not associated
with any political party, and it had nothing to do with
62
military strength, jingoism, or an aggressive policy.
But the political and economic climate was changing so that
Darwinism could be applied to an imperialistic philosophy.
The spirit of the time was rolling against the Liberalism
of Gladstone. This development was especially emphasized
by the Franco-Prussian War and the serious economic compe-
tition from Germany and the United States. The Franco-
Prussian War, which was fully reported in the British press,
seemed to falsify the Benthamite concept that progress was
from a military society to an industrial society. In six
months Prussia as a military state defeated France, the
nation which was thought to represent liberalism in Europe.
Also, this war demonstrated what war as an instrument of
policy could accomplish.^ J. L. Wilkinson declared that

^^lbid., p. 127.
^•^R. C. K. Ensor, England, 1870-1914 (Oxford, 1936),
pp. 3, 102.
 27
Liberalism was responsible for the prevalent and mistaken
concept in England that the use of force was always wrong.

He insisted that war was a legal "form of political

64
action." This idea seemed to have some validity since
the balance of power in Europc that England had hoped to
m a m t a m vanished because of the German victory. 65 The
Franco-Prussian War also seemed to symbolize the retrogres-
sion of liberalism in Europe. As a broad generalization
it can be stated that between 1815 and 1850 there had been
the growth of liberal and democratic movements in Europe,
but between 1851 and 1874 most of these movements were
66
stopped and reversed to an anti-liberal nature.

In addition, the new economic competition of Germany

and the United States in the 1870's was destructive to the

Manchester doctrines. These doctrines were framed during

the mid-Victorian period when England had a near monopoly

of industrial production and could afford to propagandize

free trade and an anti-empire policy. Competition from

67
Germany and the United States undermined these doctrines.

^^R. B. McDowell, British Conservatism, 1832-1914

(London, 1959), p. 95.
^^Thornton, The Imperial Idea and Its Enemies, pp.
26-27.
^^David Thomson, England in the Nineteenth Century,
1815-1914 (Baltimore, 1950) , p. 29. ~"
^^Bodelsen, Mid-Victorian Imperialism, pp. 82-83.
 28
Froude stated in 1870 that the prophecy that England would
be the emporium of the world's trade and the workshop of
mankind was being falsified by foreign competition and that
Enaland maintained herself in this competition only because
shc had cheapened the quality and workmanship of her prod-
. 68
ucts.
The years that followed Gladstone's first ministry were
characterized by the suppression of the Manchester doctrines
and by the advocation of an aggressive and interventionist
foreign policy. But the adaptation of the Darwinian sys-
tem to this political situation was a slow and almost
tedious process. This seemed to be primarily because of the
influence of the evolutionary philosopher, Herbert Spencer.

68Froude, Short Studies, II, 192-197.

 CHAPTER II

HERBERT SPENCER

Karl Pearson, A collective Darwinist, stated in 1900:

The older evolutionists overlooked several of

the factors of the struggle for existence. They
emphasized, in a way which now appears almost
absurd, the struggle of individual with individ-
ual. . . . Like the other political economists,
they thought all real progress depended on an
all-around fight within the community.l

Thus the earliest evolutionists were individual Darwinists.

Charles Darwin was an individual Darwinist; Thomas Huxley

and Alfred Russel Wallace were individual Darwinists until

the 1880*3. Herbert Spencer was also an individual Darwin-

ist. It was Spencer, a Gladstonian, who worked out most

systematically the social implications of individual Darwin-

ism and embedded them in the doctrines of the Manchester

School. In Spencer, the conflict between Darwinism and

imperialism continued to exist on account of their Man-

chester relationship.

Spencer's political philosophy was a manifestation of

the Benthamite spirit. The high point of Benthamite liber-

alism was around 1850, and until about 1880 the general
2
tendency was toward mdividualism. The optimism of the

Karl Pearson, National Life From the Standpoint of

Science (2nd ed.; London, 1905), p. 55.
2
Ernest Barker, Political Thought in England, 1848 to
1914 (2nd ed.; New York, 1928) , p. 12. '
29
 30
Benthamites was the dominant trend, and it was the Man-
chester School that dominated the thoughts of Spencer.
Spencer in writing his political philosophy advanced the
doctrines of the Manchester School by basing them on the
evolutionary theory.
In Social Statics (1850) Spencer laid the foundation
for his political thought. In this work Spencer elaborated
on the fundamental belief of the Manchester School in the
benevolence of nature and the harmony of personal interests.
Whereas the Benthamites spoke of this law abstractly, Spencer
defined this law as natural selection, or, as he called it,
adaptaiiion. This law guaranteed that progress was "not an
3
accident but a necessity." In "Theory of Population,
Deduced from General Law of Animal Fertility" (1852) Spencer
expounded on the nature of this law that governed the whole
creative progress of the universe:
For as those prematurely carried off must, in the
- average of cases, be those in whom the power of
self-preservation is the least, it unavoidably
follows, that those left behind to continue the
race must be those in whom the power of self-
preservation is the greatest--must be the select
of their generation. So that, whether the dangers
to existence be of the kind produced by excess of
fertility, or of any other kind, it is clear, that
by the ceaseless exercise of the faculties needed
to contend with them, and by the death of all men
who fail to contend with them successfully, there

Ibid., pp. 81-82; Herbert Spencer, An Autobiography

(2 vols.; London, 1904), II, 7.
 31

is ensured a constant progress towards a higher

degree of skill, intelligence, and self-
regulation--a better co-ordination of actions—
a more complete life.4

Spencer defined moral conduct as that which contributed to

man's better adaptation and to his highest evolution, human

freedom being the highest stage and the ultimate purpose of

evolution. Since personal happiness was also the result of

a satisfactory adaptation, morality and happiness were essen-

tially one; thus the evolutionary process was toward the

production of the greatest happiness of the greatest number,

5
toward a perfect utilitarianism.

The function of the state in the development of prog-

ress was limited; government was considered "a necessary

evil." Its only function was to protect the citizens from

criminals and from foreign invasions. This police func-

tion barred the government from regulating industries,

giving poor relief, providing state education, and coloniz-

7
ing. Man's natural rights, the concept of which was the

core of Spencer's thought, were the ultimate reality and

4 . . .
Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution, p.
216.
" Ibid., pp. 379-380; Herbert Spencer, Social Statics; .
or, The Conditions Essential to Human Happiness Specified,
and the First of Them Developed (2nd ed.; New York, 1881),
pp. 11-26.
Spencer, Social Statics, p. 25.

^lbid., pp. 325-334, 341-406.

 32
p
could not be interfered with by the government. Although
these concepts were the products of the Manchester School,
what embedded the evolutionary theory into the Benthamite
9
stronghold was Spencer's synthetic philosophy.
After The Origin of Species brought the doctrine of
evolution to a scientific standard, Spencer wrote a syn-
thetic philosophy by applying the basic principles of
laissez-faire to all the sciences and portraying the unifi-
cation of all knowledge by vindicating evolution as a uni-
versal principle of thought. This work included First
Principles (1862) , a volume that dealt with metaphysics;
Principles of Biology (1864-1867), two volumes; Principles
of Psychology (1855), one volume; Principles of Sociology
(1876-1896), three volumes; and Principles of Ethics (1879-
1893), two volumes. This work gained Spencer the reputa-
tion of being "widely recognized as the representative

^lbid., pp. 477-481.

Q
John Morley, Recollections (2 vols.; New York, 1917),
I, 111-112; Earnest Belfort Box, Reminiscences and Reflex-
ions of a Mid and Late Victorian (New York, 1967), p. 277,
originally published in 1918; David Thomson, "Social and
Political Thought," in F. H. Hinsley, ed., Material Progress
and World Wide Problems, 1870-189 8, vol. XI of The New
Cambridge Modern History (Cambridge, 1962), p. 105.
•^^Herbert Spencer, Life and Letters of Herbert Spencer,
ed. by David Duncan (2 vols.; New York, 1908), II, 366.
 33
English philosopher, and above all as the representative
scientific philosopher."
In order to carry out this gigantic scheme Spencer
came into contact with some of Britain's most influential
men. He adopted a plan of publication by installments
issued to subscribers, who numbered about 440 in England
plus about 200 in America. 12 Some of those who helped
Spencer in this effort were John Stuart Mill, Charles
Darwin, Thomas Henry Huxley, George Eliot, Charles Kings-
ley, Sir Charles Lyell, John Tyndall, Henry T. Buckle,
Alexander Bain, and J. A. Froude.13 At one point in this
scheme, Spencer did not receive the financial support to
continue. He decided to discontinue the project, but
friends persuaded him from taking this course of action.
John Stuart Mill wrote:
On arriving here last week, I found the December
livraison of your Biology, and I need hardly say
how much I regretted the denouncement in the
paper annexed to it. What the case calls for,
however, is not only regret, but remedy; and I
think it is right that you should be indemnified
by the readers and purchasers of the series for
the loss you have incurred by it. I should be
glad to contribute my part, and should like to
know at how much you estimate the loss, and
whether you will allow me to speak to friends

"Death of Mr. Herbert Spencer," The Times, December

9, 1903, p. 12.
12
Spencer, An Autobiography, II, 52-54.
•'••^lbid., II, 484.
 34
and obtain subscriptions for the remainder. My
own impression is that sum ought to be raised
among the original subscribers.-^^
With the help of Huxley, John Tyndall, and Sir John Lubbock,
Mill initiated an action that drew attention to Spencer's
work. Mill expressed the optimism that was felt toward
Spencer's doctrine. He believed that the universe tended
imperfectly toward the production of good and thought that
the ultimate reality was the individual, although he would
disagree with Spencer upon the role of the state in the
process. 15

This confidence in Spencer was also expressed by Thomas

Huxley and Charles Darwin. In 1877 Huxley wrote a eulogy
to Spencer's work in the ninth edition of the Encyclopaedia
Britannica:
Mr. Darwin confines himself to the discussion of
the causes which have brought about the present
condition of living matter, assuming such matter
to have once come into existence. On the other
hand, Mr. Spencer and Professor Haeckel have
dealt with the whole problem of evolution. The
profound and vigorous writings of Mr. Spencer
embody the spirit of Descartes in the knowledge
of our day, and may be regarded as the "Principes
des Philosophie" of the 19th century.l6

•'•'^Mill to Spencer, Feb. 4, 1866, Ibid. , II, 134.

15
H. Hoffding, "The Influence of the Conception of
Evolution on Modern Philosophy," in A. E. Seward, ed.,
Darwin and Modern Science (Cambridge, 1909), p. 450;
Brinton, English Political Thought, pp. 90, 101.
1 f:
Thomas Huxley, "Evolution: Evolution in Biology,"
Encyclopaedia Britannica, 9th ed., VIII, 656.
 35

Darwin wrote, "After reading any of [Spencer's] books, I

generally feel enthusiastic admiration for his transcendent

talents, and have often wondered whether in the distant

future he would rank with such great men as Descartes,

17
Leibnitz, etc." Darwin, Huxley, and Tyndall often quoted
18
Spencer as an authority. Spencer combined the doctrine

that dominated their minds, evolution, with their religion,

agnosticism, and created a unified system.

It must be pointed out that Darwin, Huxley, and Tyndall

were more concerned with the acceptance of the doctrine of

evolution by the English society than with the social impli-

cations of Darwinism in the manner of Spencer's synthetic

philosophy. This was a gigantic work which few men could

have done, and in addition, Spencer had a genius for dis-

covering general principles; he was a builder, while a man

of Huxley's caliber found truths more satisfactorily by the

means of demolishing other systems, than by constructing a

personal system. 19 Sir Joseph Dalton Hooker, a famous

English botanist, pointed out, "I have been deeply impressed

with your [Spencer's] accurate and extensive information.

17
Darwin, Autobiography, pp. 108-109.
18
See Darwin, The Descent of Man, pp. 419, 447, 468,
478-481; Spencer, Herbert Spencer, I, 200; Spencer, An Auto-
biography, II, 283.
19
Webb, My Apprenticeship, pp. 27-38.
 36

your vast power of acquiring knowledge, and the sagacity

with which you analyse and generalise the facts and ideas

which lie at the foundation of both Natural and Physical

20
Sciences," Later, Huxley came into direct confrontation

with Spencer's doctrine of state education, the result of

which caused Huxley to deny the liberal doctrine that evo-

lution is equivalent to progress, a rejection which was

based upon the premises of the Spencerian philosophy.

Herbert Spencer used his reputation and Darwinism to

combat British imperialism during the years 1874-1900. His

basic anti-imperialistic concepts resulted primarily from

the action of the Disraeli administration of 1874-1880.

Some British expansion during this period resulted from the

pressure of events rather than from an imperialistic ide-

ology. For examples, Fiji asked to be annexed, and the

Gold Coast became a crown colony, following a war begun by

21
the Gladstone government of 1868-1874. But there was

also expansion because of the desire to strengthen the

Indian Empire. Imperialistic thought until Joseph Chamber-

lain was basically directed toward the Indian Empire, and

it was over this aspect of imperial policy that strife

20
Duncan, Herbert Spencer, I, 117.
Richard Faber, The Vision and the Need; Late Victo-
rian Imperialist Aims (London, 1966) , p. 53*1
 37
arose between the Conservative position and the Gladstonian
position which Spencer advocated.
India was a valuable exporter and importer, taking
about 19 percent of all British exports in the 1880's.
In addition, India was central to British trade with other
parts of Asia. India also provided a power structure in
Asia, and the Indian army could be used as diplomatic per-
suasion, or, as a last resort, as a crushing force against
Asiatic rulers who threatened to eliminate British influ-
ence and trade. 22
It was thought in some British political circles that
Britain's strength depended upon the possession of India
and that England's position in the world depended foremost
upon safe communication between the two. This idea was
held most sacred by Disraeli. In the Crystal Palace speech
he had advocated a stronger organization among the colonies.
However, Disraeli was not very interested in purely colonial
questions; he was more interested in power politics.23 He
had realized that the colonies would be of supreme value
in the future as a demonstration of power, but more impor-
tant to the English power structure, he thought, was India:

22
John Gallagher, Ronald Robmson, and Alice Denny,
Africa and the Victorians: The Climax of Imperialism in
the Dark Continent (New York, 1961), pp. 11-12.
^"^Butler, "Imperial Question in British Politics, 1868-
1880," CHBE, III, 41-43.
 38

"Power and influence we should exercise in Asia; conse-

quently in Eastern Europe, consequently also in Western

..24
Europe.

The influence of the Indian Empire upon Disraeli's

25
foreign policy was great. Cyprus was occupied as "the
26
key of Western Asia." The purchase of shares in the
Suez Canal in 1875 was from the "desire to maintain a free
27
passage to the East." In 1877 England obtained dual con-

trol with France over Egypt's finances, for the Suez Canal

was a second lifeline to India in the Mediterranean Sea.

The Transvaal was annexed so that a master link of connec-

tion between England and India around Africa could be ob-

4. • ^28
tained.

This interest of Disraeli in the Indian Empire was not

held by Gladstone. He stated:

I hoid, firmly and unconditionally . . . that

we have no interest in India, except the wellbe-
ing of India itself, and what that wellbeing
will bring with it in the way of consequence. If,
in a certain sense and through indirect channels,
India is politically tributary to England, the

^^lbid., p. 41.
25 . .
F. J. C. Hearnshaw, "Benjamin Disraeli, Earl of
Beaconfield," in Fossey John Cobb Hearnshaw, ed., The
Political Principles of Some Notable Prime Ministers of
the Nineteenth Century (London, 1926), pp. 202-203.
'Gallagher, Africa and the Victorians, p. 83.
27.3 Hansard, CCXXVII, 43.

^^Gallagher, Africa and the Victoifians, p. 16.

 39
tribute is one utterly insignificant: it is
probably not near a hundredth part of the sheer
annual profits of the nation, nor near a fourth
of the unforced gains of our commercial inter-
course with that country. India does not add
to, but takes from, our railitary strength. The
root and pitch and substance of the material
greatness of our nation lies within the compass
of these islands; and is, except in trifling
particulars, independent of all and every sort
of political dominion beyond them.29

In addition, Gladstone thought that the main line of commu-

nication with India was the South African route, stating
that the route through the Mediterranean Sea was unimpor-
tant as it only shortened military communication by three
weeks. Gladstone proclaimed that he had no concern if the
Suez Canal was closed to Britain or if Russia exerted an
mfluence in Constantinople. 30
Russia was the nation which most directly threatened
British influence in India and Asia. Thus, one of Disraeli's
central foreign policies was to keep Russia out of Constan-
tinople and the communication link with India through the
Mediterranean Sea open. Maintaining the integrity of the
Turkish Empire made constant demands on Disraeli's ability,
especially during the years 1876-1878. It was during these

29
William Gladstone, "Aggression on Egypt and Freedom
in the East," Nineteenth Century, II (1877), 153.
^°Ibid., pp. 155-157.
 40
years that the tension between the attitudes of Disraeli
and Gladstone was dramatically expressed.

In 1876 the Christian population of Bosnia and

Herzegovina rebelled against the injustices of the Turkish

government. Russia, being regarded as the special protec-

tor of the Christians of the Balkans, in union with Germany

and Austria drew up in May, 1876, the Berlin Memorandum

demanding a series of reparations and reforms from the Turk-

ish government. If these reparations and reforms were not

carried out within two months, the memorandum provided for

joint military force to be applied. France and Italy agreed

to the memorandum, but England refused. Disraeli desired to

break with the Manchester School's policy of nonintervention

in the affairs of other countries. He also desired to have

a voice in the creation of any doctrine that was to dictate

terms to Turkey, and the British government had not been

31
consulted about the Berlin Memorandum. As a warning to

Russia, Disraeli ordered a squadron to Besika Bay near the

32
Dardanelles. In June the B e r l m Memorandum was withdrawn.

31
D. C. Somervell, Disraeli and Gladstone: A Duo-
Biographical Sketch (New York, 1926), p. 193; Erick Eyck,
Gladstone, trans. by Bernard Miall (London, 1966), p. 254,
originally published in 1938.
32
R. T. Shannon, Gladstone and the Bulgarian Agitation
(London, 1963), pp. 20-31.
 41
In May, 1876, following Disraeli's rejection of the
Berlin Memorandum, some Bulgarian nationalists attempted an
insurrection against the Turks. Moslem irregulars were set
loose upon the defenseless Christian population, and about
fifteen thousand Bulgarians were massacred; over seventy
villages, two hundred schools, and ten monasteries were
destroyed. These atrocities aroused emotional responses
within the British public and ignited the wrath of Glad-
stone in the defense of the Christian Bulgarians. In Sep-
tember, 1876, Gladstone published the famous pamphlet The
Bulgarian Horrors and the Question of the East which sold

forty thousand copies in four days and by the end of the

33 ..
month 200,000 copies. Appealing to the British religious
conscience, the pamphlet was a violent attack upon the
Turkish administration and upon the pro-Turkish sentiment
of the Disraeli government. The Turkish atrocities were
referred to as the "basest and blackest outrages upon record
within the present century, if not within the memory of
man," and the Turkish race was referred to as "the one
34
great anti-human speciman of humanity." He also stated

33
Ibid., p. 22; Paul Knaplund, Gladstone's Foreign
Policy (Hamden, Connecticut, 1970), pp. 70-71, originally
published in 1935.
John Morley, The Life of William Ewart Gladstone
(3 vols.; London, 1903), II, 553.
 42
that Disraeli had condoned outrages so evil "that it passes
the power of heart to conceive or of tongue and pen ade-
quately to describe them." In conclusion, Gladstone ap-
pealed for a free and independent Bulgaria."^^
At first Disraeli tried to discount the Bulgarian hor-
rors, stating that "when we are thoroughly informed of what
has occurred it will be found that the [prevailing] state-
36
ments are scarcely warranted." When he had verification
of the Bulgarian incident, he continued to advocate a pro-
Turkish policy. In his last speech in the House of Commons
before he took his seat in the House of Lords as Earl of
Beaconsfield, Disraeli stated:
I am sure that as long as England is ruled by
English Parties who understand the principles on
which our Empire is founded, and who are re-
solved to maintain that Empire, our influence in
that part of the world [Turkeyj can never be
looked upon with indifference. . . . There is
nothing to justify us in talking in such a vein
of Turkey, as has, and is being at this moment
entertained. . . . What our duty is at this
critical moment is to maintain the Empire of
England.37

In other words, Disraeli was saying that the proper response

toward the Turkish atrocities should be based upon the ques-
tion, "What is the best way to protect the Indian Empire?"

35
Philip
1954), p. 242.Magnus, Gladstone, A Biography (New York,
36 3 Hansard, CCXXX, 1181.

^^lbid., CCXXXI, 1146.

 43
Gladstonian religious sentiment had its place but not in
international politics.
Disraeli's attitude provoked an outbreak of protest
meetings throughout Great Britain in 1876. Charles Darwin
and Herbert Spencer participated actively in these demon-
38
strations. In an open-air meeting held on September 9,
Gladstone called upon the Russians to drive the Turks out
of Bulgaria:
I, for one, for the purposes of justice, am
ready as an individual to give the right hand of
friendship to Russia when her objects are just
and righteous, and to say, in the name of God,
"Go on and prosper!"39

In April, 1877, Russia declared war on Turkey and

started an all-out drive on Constantinople. In August,
1877, Spencer became a member of a committee to organize a
Russian Sick and Wounded Fund. 40 In May Gladstone intro-
duced in the House of Commons resolutions expressing strong
disapproval of the Turkish government and proposing that
Great Britain refuse to give Turkey any support. 41 Although
Gladstone's resoiutions were defeated, they were one of the

38
Shannon, Gladstone and the Bulgarian Agitation, pp.
174-175, 203, 204, 206, 212.
39
Magnus, Gladstone, p. 24 3.
Shannon, Gladstone and the Bulgarian Agitation, pp.
174-175.
'^•'•3 Hansard, CCXXXIV, 367, 404-439.
 44
factors which were responsible for the neutrality of England
42
during the Russo-Turkish War. On June 17, 1877 Spencer
wrote to Gladstone thanking him for saving England from a
"disastrous and disgraceful" condition which a war on behalf
of the Turkish government would have bestowed upon England.
Spencer stated that Gladstone had done this service to
England by his effort to arouse public opinion. 43
Russia won the war, and on March 3, 1878, a very pro-
Russian treaty was signed. The Treaty of San Stefano pro-
vided for a large independent Bulgaria. It also stipulated
that Russia would draw up a Bulgarian constitution and have
44 . . .
a temporary occupation of Bulgaria. The Disraeli admmis-
tration refused to accept the Treaty of San Stefano, since
it was believed that Russia would be influential in Bulgaria
and thus become a menace to British power in the Mediterra-
nean and become dangerous to the Indian Empire. At the end
of May, Disraeli sent 7,000 Indian troops to Malta, assert-
ing that since war with Russia might result in the effort to
defend India, it was the right and duty of India to support

Morley, Gladstone, II, 569.

^^Shannon, Gladstone and the Bulgarian Agitation, p.
212.
"^^F. H. Hinsley, "International Rivalry in the Colonial
Sphere, 1869-1885," CHBE, III, 97-98.
 45
militarily this imperial policy. Russia submitted the
Treaty of San Stefano to the Congress of Berlin, which met
on June 13, 187 8. At the meeting Disraeli was one of the
central personalities. He succeeded in dividing Bulgaria
into two sections. The northern section was to have "polit-
ical autonomy"; the southern section was to remain Turkish.
Disraeli hoped that this separation would guard against a
Russianized Bulgaria capable of exerting major influence
m ,
upon Turkey. 46

Gladstone was in basic agreement with the Congress of

Berlin because it resulted in approximately eleven million
people, formerly under Turkish rule, receiving self-
government. 47 Although he thought that the Congress of
Berlin and the Russo-Turkish War could have been prevented
if the Conservative Government had accepted the Berlin Memo-
randum, his main criticism was directed against the secret
negotiation before the Congress of Berlin between Disraeli
and Turkey. By this convention England acquired Cyprus as
a base from which she promised to defend Turkish Asia

45
George Earle Buckle and W. F. Monypenny, The Life of
Benjamin Disraeli, Earl of Beaconsfield (6 vols.; New York,
1910-1920), VI, 287-288.
4 fi
Ibid., p. 362; Somervell, Disraeli and Gladstone, p.
204.
47Morley, Gladstone, II, 576.
 46
against Russian aggression. 48 Gladstone stated that no

"despotic power would have dared to do what Beaconsfield

had done." Disraeli had overly committed Britain to Turkey

without parliament's consent or knowledge. The agreement

was an "insane covenant" and its secret negotiation was an

"act of duplicity.""*^

In the Midlothian campaign of 1879, which Paul Knap-

iund called the "most famous political campaign in English

history," Gladstone made the Bulgarian atrocities an issue

in his crusade against "Beaconsfieldism." He attacked

the Indian policy of Disraeli and denounced Conservative

intervention in Cyprus, Egypt, the Transvaal, and

Afghanistan as "gratuitous, dangerous, ambiguous, imprac-

51
ticable and impossible." Gladstone stated that the Man-

chester policy of non-intervention should be adopted, not

the Conservative policy of centralized control and imperi-

52
alism. The appeal to Christianity and the moral

48
Magnus, Gladstone, p. 254.
Buckle, Disraeli, VI, 355.

^^Shannon, Gladstone and the Bulgarian Agitation, p.

272; Knaplund, Gladstone's Foreign Policy, p. 72.

^•^Gallagher, Africa and the Victorians, p. 92.

^^Knaplund, Gladstone and Britain's Imperial Policy,

p. 145.
 47

conscience contributed to the overwhelming Liberal victory

53
in the general election of 1880.

After Gladstone became prime minister, England with-

drew from the Transvaal and partly from Afghanistan. It

also considered returning Cyprus to the Turkish government.

Gladstone completely undermined Disraeli's influence and

54
power in Turkey. He demonstrated his belief that England

could not rule by the sword, but only by free partnership.

It was in this political atmosphere that Spencer wrote

his Principles of Sociology in which he contrasted the Con-

servative party, with its policy of militarism, and the

Liberal party, with its policy of industrialism and con-

tract. 55 Motivated by dissatisfaction with Disraeli's

Indian policy, Spencer had already joined in 1881 an "Anti-

Aggression League," a group that he and Gladstone thought

56
coincided with the program of the Liberal party. The or-

ganization was a complete failure, but Spencer's writings

which were his main influence in anti-imperialistic propa-

ganda remained. In Principles of Sociology, Spencer stated

53
Gallagher, Africa and the Victorians, p. 92.
^"^Buckle, Disraeli, VI, 366.

^ Herbert Spencer, The Man Versus the State (Garden

City, 1940), p. 20, originally published in 1884.

^^Spencer, Herbert Spencer, I, 297-298.

 48

that progress evolved from the militant state to an indus-

trial state. The militant state was the condition where

centralization and militarism submerged the individual, and

the state was more important than the individual. All mem-

bers of the militant state had to be either warriors or

those that supplied the needs of warriors; all other occu-

pations were held in contempt. Since inter-state struggle

interfered with intra-state struggle, individuality was sup-

57
pressed. In the industrial state there was a condition

of semi-anarchy; the will of the citizen was supreme, and

the governing agency existed merely to carry out the citi-

58
zen's will. In the industrial state, the government was

bounded within the limits set forth by the classical econo-

mists: the defense of life and property against foreign

59
enemies and internal aggressors. In the ultimate stage

of the industrial state, the division of labor that charac-

terized industry would be completed; each person would have

a personal duty that would characterize him as an individu-

alist. All men, as ends in themselves, would be knit to-

gether by the rules of industry and laissez-faire. There

57
Herbert Spencer, The Principles of Sociology (2nd
ed.; 3 vols.; New York, 1898), II, 570-571; III, 367,
594-595.
^^lbid., II, 607.

^^lbid., II, 656.

 49
would be no war. There would be no state boundaries, for
there would be no governments. It would be the ultimate
stage of Benthamite cosmopolitanism. This ultimate stage
would come about by adaptation. As the stars, the sun, and
the earth evolved out of chaos to compose a unifying and
closely knit system, the members in the state would do the
same. Those that could not adapt to this system would be
eliminated, while those remaining would adapt to this per-
fection. As the stars, the sun, and the earth in the
rationalistic system have no central point of control, the
state would not have a need of a centralized government. ^"^'
Thus this state would be a complete anarchy. The eternal
stage was the objective of the evolution of the state; thus
an imperialistic policy was very low in the evolutionary
scale.

Spencer continued to express anti-imperialistic con-

cepts in his last book, Facts and Comments, which was
stirred by the Boer War of 1899. Some time before the out-
break of hostilities in South Africa, he had denounced the
imperialistic policy of Salisbury's Government. When the
war broke out, it aroused a greater emotional response from

Spencer, An Autobiography, II, 329-330, 375-378;

Barker, Political Thought in England, p. 100.
61
Robert MacKintosh, From Comte to Benjamin Kidd, The
Appeal to Biology or Evolution for Human Guidance (London,
1899), pp. 93-94.
 50
Spencer than any other political event; often he remorse-
62
fully said, "I am ashamed of my country." In a private
conversation he expressed a very deep pessimism toward
England:

Heading straight towards military despotism:

the people will get what they deserve. I remem-
ber being angry many years ago with an Irishman
for saying that the English were a stupid race.
I should not be angry now, I should only add
that they are brutal as well as stupid.o3
In Facts and Comments, Spencer wrote, "The coincidence in
time between the South African war and the recent outburst
of Imperialism, illustrates the general truth that militancy
and Imperialism are closely allied—are, in fact, different
64
manifestations of the same local condition." This condi-
tion, argued Spencer, would cause individuals to be serfs
to the state, because they would work to pay the taxation
for the army and the navy. Paying these taxes would be the
primary function of the individuals in the state.
Spencer placed partial responsibility for the Boer War
on the Liberal party, for Rosebery's Government of 1894-
1895 had rejected the Manchester doctrines and had adopted

62Duncan, Herbert Spencer, II, 190.

^"^Beatrice Webb, Our Partnership, ed. by Barbara

Drake and Margaret I.Cole (New York, 1948), p. 197.
^^Herbert Spencer, Facts and Comments (New York, 1902),
p. 159.
^^lbid., p. 169.
 51
the policy of imperialism. Thus the dominant thought in
both the Conservative and the Liberal parties from the end
of 1893 to 1900 was imperialism.^^ Archibald Philip Prim-
rose, 5th Earl of Rosebery, believing that the Empire was
a necessity of international power, was a radical imperi-
67

alist. In 1893, he proclaimed that it was "part of

[England's] responsibility and heritage to take care that
the world as far as it can be moulded should receive the
68
Anglo-Saxon, and not another character." In 1895, Rose-
bery defined Liberal imperialism as "first, the maintenance
of the Empire; secondly, the opening of new spaces for our
surplus population; thirdly, the suppression of the slave
trade; fourthly, the development of our commerce, which so
often needs it."69 It was this development of Liberal ide-
ology that was greatly responsible for Gladstone's resigna-
tion as prime minister in 1894.70 Gladstone stated that the
foundation of the Liberal creed was being threatened and
that the last traces of the Manchester concepts iaid in his

^^Duncan, Herbert Spencer, II, 190-191.

^^Faber, The Vision and the Need, p. 69.
^^Thornton, The Imperial Idea and Its Enemies, p. 82.
^^Faber, The Vision and the Need, p. 70.
•^^Knaplund, Gladstone's Foreign Policy, p. 12.
 52
71
very being. Indeed, the Manchester dogma had been sup-
pressed with Gladstone's resignation, a fact of which
Spencer was very rauch conscious.

Just as Spencer's popularity resulted from his support

of the liberal doctrine of individualism and progress at
the height of Benthamite influence, his rapid fall in popu-
larity in the 1890's and eariy 1900's was due in part be-
cause he would not conform to the emotional doctrine of
imperialism that had swept England. Barzun wrote, "When
Spencer . . . began to assail English railitarism and to
predict the degeneracy of the nation through the rise of a
new serfdom, he was scouted as a pacifist, a dotard, and a
dissenter. The London Times celebrated his death [1903]
with an article against him. English opinion was so violent
that protests came from the continent." 72
But Spencer's anti-iraperialistic propaganda should re-
ceive credit for hindering the use of collective Darwinism
as a justification for British imperialisra. His influence
was adequately expressed by H. G. Wells, an iraperialist,
though briefly, in the late nineteenth century.
I did not at first link the idea of science with
the Socialist idea, the idea, that is, of a
planned inter-co-ordinated society. The social-
istraoveraentin Engiand was the aesthetic

^•^Magnus, Gladstone, pp. 416-417; See D. A. Haraer, John

Morley, Liberal Intellect in Politics (Oxford, 1968), p. 330
^^Barzun, Darwin, Marx, Wagner, p. 103; See The Times,
December 9, 19 03, p. 9.
 53
influence of Ruskin; it was being run by poets
and decorators like Williara Morris . . . These
leaders were generally ignorant of scientific
philosophy and they had been misled by Herbert
Spencer's Individualism into a belief that bio-
logical science was anti-socialist.^3

Just as Darwinism was not thought of as a justification of

socialism in the years from 1874 to 1894, Darwinism was not
thought of as a justification of imperialisra. Darwinism
was absent from the political thoughts of Disraeli and
Salisbury and was lacking in the writings of the two raost
important imperialistic writers of this period, Jaraes
Anthony Froude and John Robert Seeley.
Disraeli, desiring England take an active part in the
settleraent of world affairs, tried to put an end to the Man-
chester School's principle of non-intervention. His iraperi-
alism was very much anti-Benthamite. Concerning Disraeli's
imperialisra Bodelsen wrote:
Two eleraents Disraeli did have a share in adding
to Iraperialisra: the first beginnings of the as-
sociation of Imperialisra with Jingoisra dates
from his experiments in Indian and foreign pol-
icy, and the particular brand of Iraperialisra
which Seeley called the borabastic school, i.e.
the school of Iraperialisra which dwells on the
spectacular aspect of the possession of colonies.

73,H. G. Wells, Experiment in Autobiography, Discov-

eries and Conclusions of a Very Ordinary Brain (Since 1866)
(New York, 1934), p. 192. Wells also wrote that in 1912
"We do but eraerge from a period of deliberate happen-go-
lucky and the influence of Herbert Spencer, who came near
raising public shiftlessness to the dignity of a national
philosophy" (p. 567).
 54
which is prone to consider mere extent of terri-
tory an advantage in itself, and which glories
in the possession of 'an Erapire on which the sun
never sets,' may be said to have been first
brought into fashion by Disraeli's Indian policy
and his taste for the external symbols of Impe-
rial rule as exemplified by the Royal Titles Act,
by which the Queen assumed the title of Erapress
of India.'4 ^

But Disraeli's power politics did not incorporate Darwinisra.

Disraeli first carae in contact with the evolutionary
theory through a pre-Darwinian book, Robert Charaber's
Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation (1844).
Disraeli was first "enchanted with it." But when he real-
ized the theological iraplications of it, realizing that
evolution underrained the historical account of Moses and
thus the whole Biblical systera, he, as an established novel-
ist, ridiculed Charaber's evolutionary theory in his novel
75
Tancred (1847). Tancred was the story of an idealist
concerned with restoring Biblical Christianity to the West.
Desiring to raake a pilgrimage to the Holy Sepulchre at
Jerusalem, he met a very beautiful young lady naraed Con-
stance Rawleigh. In the process of sharing his religious
feeling with her, he was disconcerted to find her reading
The Revelation of Chaos, Disraeli's raasquerade of Charaber's

74
Bodelsen, Mid-Victorian Imperialism, p. 124.
75
Leo J. Henkin, Darwinisra in the English Novel, 1860-
1910; The Irapact of Evolution on Victorian Fiction (New
York, 1940) , p. 38.
 55
Vestiqes. Furthermore, Tancred's infatuation with her was
76
completely annihilated by her enthusiasm for the book.
The conversation between Tancred and Constance, as recorded
by Disraeli, is very arausing.
"You raust read the 'Revelations.'" Constance
insists: "it is all explained. But what is
most interesting, is the way in which man has
been developed. You know, all is developraent.
The principle is perpetually going on. First
there was nothing, then there was something;
then I forget the next, I think there were
sheils, then fishes; then we came, let me see,
did we corae next? Never mind that; we came at
last. And the next change there will be some-
thing very superior to us, something with wings.
Ah! that's it: we were fishes, and I believe we
shall be crows . . . ."
"I do not believe I ever was a fish," said
Tancred.
"Oh, but it is all proved . . . . This is
developraent. We had fins--we may have wings."
"I was a fish, and I shall be a crow," says
Tancred to himself. Sadly he walks away. "What
a spiritual raistressl" he exclaims, withal re-
lieved at his escape. "And yesterday, for a
moment, I alraost drearaed of kneeling with her
at the Holy Sepulchre."77
In 1864 Samuel Wilberforce, Bishop of Oxford and one
of the main leaders in the Anglican church's struggle
against the theory of evolution, invited Disraeli to speak
against the Darwinian forces. In the Sheldonian Theatre
at Oxford on Noveraber 25, 1864, Disraeli stated:
What is the question now placed before society
with a glib assurance the raost astounding?

"^^lbid. , pp. 38-39.

"^"^lbid. , p. 39.
 56
My question is this—Is raan an ape or an angel?
My Lord, I am on the side of the angels.78

In 1870 Disraeli continued his attack against the evo-

lutionalists. First, he wrote in the general preface to
his republished novels that evolution was a "Teutonic rebel-
lion against the Divine truths entrusted to the Seraites"
and would raeet the sarae destiny as "the Celtic insurrection"
7Q
of Voltaire and the Encyclopaedists. He asserted that
the ascendance ofraaterialisracould be laid upon the offen-
sives of natural selection and Higher Criticism, for these
had propagandized a pseudo-science that postulated that
80
religion was anti-intellectual and anti-scientific. In
his last stateraent against the evolutionalists, Disraeli
portrayed in his Lothair (1870) a raan who fell consecutively
in love with three woraen who represented the Church of Rorae,
81
Liberal religion, and finally the Church of England.
Concerning Liberal religion, one of the characters in the
book proclaimed, "They have declared war against the Church,
the State, and the doraestic principle. All the great

78Buckle, Disraeli, IV, 374.

^^lbid., IV, 375.

^^Henkin, Darwinisra in the English Novel, p. 78.

^•'"Buckle, Disraeli, V, 151.

 57
truths on which the family reposes are denounced. Their
religion is the religion of science."®^

The writings of Disraeli demonstrated that the raan who

had identified the Conservative party with the policy of
imperialism would never consciously adopt evolution, much
less collective Darwinisra, as a justification of iraperial-
isra. Iraperialism, to Disraeli, was an emotional raoveraent
that transcended the small world of Darwinism.

Disraeli's anti-Darwinian views were also shared by

Salisbury, who became the Conservative leader in 1881.
From 1886 until 1900 British foreign policy was built upon
the political concepts of Salisbury. England began to rely
on Egypt rather than Constantinople as the pivot point to
protect the Indian Erapire.83 Gladstone's governraents of
1880-1886 had withdrawn British influence at Constantinople,
and Gerraany's influence had replaced it.84 Besides, by
1889 the decay of the Sultanate and the decline of the power
of the British fleet in the Mediterranean raade it irapossible
85
for Britain to hold its position there. To strengthen her
position in Egypt, England expanded into Africa,

^^lbid., V, 156.
83
Gallagher, Africa and the Victorians, p. 255.
^^Buckle, Disraeli, VI, 367.
oc
Gallagher, Africa and the Victorians, p. 273.
 58
particularly East Africa since this area was strategically
important to protect the Indian Empire.^^
The two chief corapetitors with Britain for control of
Egypt and East Africa were France and Germany. In 1879
England and France enjoyed dual control of Egypt, but the
British occupation of Egypt in 1882 terrainated France's
influence. This created friction between the two nations
since France desired corapensation. Salisbury encouraged
the expansion of France into West Africa as a means of di-
verting her from Egypt and reducing her antagonism toward
87
England. This left Germany as Salisbury's chief rival
in East Africa. This rivalry was settled on July 1, 1890.
Great Britain agreed to cede the island of Heligoland and
some territory in Southwest Africa to Germany in exchange
for British sovereignty over the territories in East Africa
88
which controlled the head waters of the Nile. During
the negotiations with Gerraany concerning East Africa,
Salisbury wrote:
I will say that, during these negotiations,
it occurred toraeraorethan once that it raight

^^lbid., pp. 462-463; J. A. S. Grenville, Lord Salis-

bury and Foreign Policy (London, 1964), pp. 19, 97.
^^Gwendoien Ceci1, Life of Robert Marquis of Salisbury
(4 vols.; London, 1922-1932), IV, 252-253; F. H. Hinsley,
"International Rivalry, 1885-1895," CHBE, III, 263-264.
^^Hinsiey, "International Rivalry, 1885-1895," pp.
268-269.
 59
be wiser to break thera off altogether and to
allow the years to pass over us until the natu-
ral progress of civilization and the struggle
for existence should have deterrained, in a far
raore effective way than can be done by proto-
cols and treaties, who are to be supreme, and
in what parts of that vast continent each na-
tion is to rule.S^
This statement by Salisbury seemed to have a Darwinian pre-
supposition, but an investigation of Salisbury's thoughts
reveals that he was an anti-Darwinist.
In Salisbury's presidential address to the British
Association in 1894, it appeared that the Conservative
party had accepted officially the doctrine of evolution.
Salisbury claimed that Darwin's real work was disposing "of
the doctrine of the irarautability of species" and proving
the evolutionary theory. As to theraechanismof the Darwin-
ian theory, natural selection, he implied that it was insig-
nificant to the evolutionary theory. 90 Concerning Salis-
bury's presentation, Henry F. Osborn thought that Salisbury
was expressing the Conservative skepticism of Darwinisra and
was regarding Darwinisra as a disagreeable form of Liberal-
ism. Osborn observed, "It was only too evident that the
Marquis himself found no corafort in evolution, and even

^^Cecil, Salisbury, IV, 228.

^^Thoraas Huxley, Life and Letters of Thoraas Henry
Huxley, ed. by Leonard Huxley (2 vols.; New York, 1901)
II, 400-401.
 60
entertained a suspicion as to its probability. "^-^ In 1894,
Salisbury, prirae minister during the Conservative govern-
ments of 1886-1892 and 1895-1902, was personally willing to
accept the doctrine of evolution, but he believed that to
apply any form of evolution to social and iraperialistic
thought transcended the limits of evolution. Salisbury
desired to keep evolution in the realm of biology and out
of the sphere of man.

Thus the framework was not Darwinian in which Salisbury

said, "struggle for existence should have deterrained, in a
far more effective way than can be done by protocols and
treaties, who are to be supreme." This apparent contradic-
tion resulted frora the lack of understanding of the rela-
tionship between power politics and Darwinisra. Darwinism
describes power politics biologically, but the acceptance
of power politics is not a sufficient condition for the
acceptance of Darwinism. Disraeli and Salisbury adopted
power politics, but they both disbelieved the Darwinian
theory. Power politics was a dorainant principle during
the late nineteenth century, but the Darwinian theory as a
92
justification of power politics was not vindicated.

^•^lbid., II, 399.

^^D. A. Hamer, John Morley, pp. 330-331; McDowell,
British Conservatism, pp. 95-96, 105; Soraervell, English
Thought, pp. 186-187.
 61
Another imperialist who taught the "might is right"
principle without invoking Darwinism was Jaraes Anthony
Froude. His concept of power was based upon the Carlylian
principle; thus Froude's force structure was a pre-Darwinian
concept. Froude and Carlyle both equated the physical and
social reign with the moral reign; that is, he equated the
most righteous with the strongest. In the long run, he

stated, the most righteous, who are the strongest, overcome

the weakest, who are least righteous.93 It was upon this
foundation that Froude wrote in The English in Ireland in
The Eighteenth Century, "the superior part has a natural
right to govern; the inferior part has a right to be gov-
erned." 94 It was not upon the Darwinian foundation as
Carlton J. H. Hayes implies. 95
Froude's imperialism rested upon Carlyle's social the-
ory. Carlyle and Froude were very anti-Benthamite, hated
the political economists, and despised the doctrine of
utilitarianism. 9 6 Because Froude was apparently very well
read in Spencer, he perhaps associated Darwinism with the

^"^Bodelsen, Mid-Victorian Iraperialisra, p. 177.

^^Hayes, A Generation of Materialisra, p. 12.

^^lbid.
96 B o d e l s e n , M i d - V i c t o r i a n I r a p e r i a l i s m , p p . 106, 107.
 62
97
Manchester School. This is perhaps the reason there is
not a word in his political writings concerning the Darwin-
ian theory. He advocated emigration as a solution to the
industrial system that the Manchester School had endorsed.
Thus the colonies played an important position in his im-
98
perialism. Gladstone's concept of erapire appeared to be
a separatist doctrine to hira, and thus he was one of the
_. QQ
first to attack Gladstonian policy.
John Robert Seeley also ignored Darwinism in his justi-
fication of British imperialism. Seeley wrote The Expansion
of England, a work which R. C. K. Ensor claimed was "the
single influence which did most to develop the iraperialist
idea" in the 1880's and 1890's. Seeley, in The Expansion
of England, presented war as a natural process, but it was
not survival of the fittest. In fact, he stated that
England's victories over France in the eighteenth and early
nineteenth centuries were not because England was superior,
for France was stronger, but because of England's geograph-
ical position. France located on the continent was enticed

^^Duncan, Herbert Spencer, I, 126; Spencer, An Auto-

biography, II, 484.
^^Bodelsen, Mid-Victorian Imperialisra, p. 176.

^^lbid., p. 201.
•^^^Ensor, England, 1870-1914, p. 163.
 63
into European entangleraents which drained her strength. ^^"^
He also emphatically stated that England's conquest of
India had depended upon Indian troops comprising four-fifths
of the British array; thus India had conquered herself."^^^
Too many writers have desired to equate Seeley's doctrine
with collective Darwinism, but this is easily seen as
absurd in Seeley's own writings and in the knowledge that
the social implication of Darwinism was dominated by the
Spencerian interpretation.

The doraination of Spencer's interpretation of Darwinisra

was draraatically seen in Thoraas H. Huxley's Roraanes Lecture
of May 18, 1893. Huxley stated that Spencer's interpreta-
tion of the social implications of Darwinism was correct,
but Spencer was incorrect in equating evolution with prog-
ress. Huxley stated that Darwinisra was nothing but self-
ishness and death in which the weakest raust die. Morality
had to be established outside and against the Darwinian
systera, and social progress raeant the checking of the cosmic
progress at every step. The audience was very rauch sur-
prised, Thoraas Huxley's son wrote, for "Huxley was popularly
supposed to hold the sarae views as Mr. Spencer—for were

•'•^•'•J. R. Seeley, The Expansion of England, Two Courses

of Lectures (Boston, 1901), pp. 126, 128.
-'•^^lbid. , pp. 200-202.
 64
they not both Evolutionists?" 103 This lecture demonstrated
that individual Darwinism as a social theory in the late
1880's and 1890's was unsatisfactory. It raust be pointed
out that Darwinism was foremost a social theory, and only
as a by-product of a social theory was Darwinism applied
to international relations. It was only the pressure of
events that developed collective Darwinism into a theory
of international policy.

^^"^Huxley, Thomas Huxley, II, 374.

 CHAPTER III
SOCIAL THEORY AND IMPERIALISM

The evolution of Darwinism frora an individualistic

doctrine of the Manchester School to a collective doctrine
justifying British iraperialisra involved two basic steps.
First, Darwinisra had to be dislodged frora the Manchester
School. This process was accomplished by the writings of
Thomas Huxley, Alfred Russel Wallace, Benjamin Kidd, and
Karl Pearson. Second, the Liberal party had to reject
Gladstonian Liberalism and substitute a more imperialistic
policy, for Darwinism was a doctrine of the left. This
process was accomplished by Liberal reaction to Gladstone's
struggle for Irish Horae Rule and the ascendence of Rose-
bery to the leadership of the Liberal party in 1894.
The raan who first weakened Spencer's grip on Darwinism
was Darwin's bulldog, Thomas Huxley. At first Huxley
seemed content to follow the doctrines laid down by Spencer
I return your [Spencer's] proofs [of the First
Principles] by this post. To my mind nothing
can be better than their contents, whether in
matter or in raanner. . . .
I rejoice that you have raade a beginning and
such a beginning—for the more I think about it
the more important it seeras to rae that soraebody^

•'•See Alvar Ellegard, Darwin and the General Reader;

The Reception of Darwin's Theory of Evolution in the British
Periodical Press, 1859-1872 (Gbteborg, 1958), pp. 35-36.

65
 66
should think out into a connected systera the
loose notions that are floating about raore or
less distinctly in all the best minds.

It seems as if all the thoughts in what you

have written were my own, and yet I am con-
scious of the enormous difference your presenta-
tion of them raakes in ray intellectual state.
One is thought in the state of herap yarn, and the
other in the state of rope. Work away, then, ex-
cellent rope-raaker, and make us raore ropes to
hold on against the devil and the parsons.2
In a personal letter, just after his son's death, he also
expressed Spencer's optimisra of the cosraic process, which
he was to attack in the Roraanes Lecture:
I am no optiraist, but I have the firraest belief
that the Divine Governraent (if we raay use such
a phrase to express the sum of the "customs of
matter") is wholly just. The more I know inti-
mately of the lives of other men (to say noth-
ing of my own), the raore obvious it is to rae
that the wicked does not flourish nor is the
righteous punished. But for this to be clear
we raust bear in mind what alraost all forget,
that the rewards of life are contingent upon
obedience to the whole law—physical as well
as raoral--and that raoral obedience, will not
atone for physical sin, or vice versa.3

As late as 1886, he continued to support this position. In

"Science and Morals," Huxley stated that he had "a real and
living belief in [the] fixed order of nature which sends
social disorganization upon the track of immorality, as

2
T. H. Huxley to H. Spencer, Septeraber 3, 1860, in
Huxley, Thoraas Huxley, I, 229.
•^T. H. Huxley to C. Kingsley, Septeraber 23, 1860,
Ibid., I, 233-236.
 67
surely as it sends physical disease after physical tres-
4
passes."

Huxley's disagreeraent with Spencer arose out of the

inability of the Manchester School to handle the social
probleras of the late nineteenth century. New ideas were
needed for the new classes which had obtained the franchise:
the urban artisans in 1867, and the rural laborers in 1885-^
There was a deraand for social reforras. As long as the fac-
tory systera was in its infant and adolescent stages, the
factory was sraall, and an individual seeraed to have control
over his own destiny. An industrious individual could
clirab the social ladder and could even becorae the master of
his own factory. In this stage the Manchester School seemed
to have some validity with its gospel of individualisra. But
by 1886 the factory was no longer sraall but coraplex and
owned by thousands of shareholders. Thus the British indus-
trial society seemed to be a legalized system of slavery to
the workers, because they no longer had the opportunity for
social improveraent. In 1886 Charles Booth reported that
one-third of the London population lived "below the poverty
line." Collectivism became a popular deraand. Even

^Hiramelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution, p.

382.
^Barker, Political Thought in England, pp. 183-184.
^Ensor, England, 1870-1914, p. 301.
 68
socialism invaded the political scene. In 1881, H. M.
Hyndmann founded the Democratic Federation, the first
modern English socialist body. In 1884, Williara Morris
broke away frora this organization and founded the Socialist
League. In January, 1884, the Fabian Society was also
founded. Huxley appreciated these new social conditions,
for he had worked araong the iower classes propagandizing
the evolutionary theory. His basic solution was public
education. Upon this presupposition he becarae an educa-
tional reforra leader. At a tirae when laissez-faire ex-
tremists were publicly belittling the provisions of
Forster's Education Act, Huxley wrote an article entitled
"Administrative Nihilism" (1871). In this article he
dealt with the Spencerian objections against state inter-
ference in education and criticized Spencer for limiting
the actions of the governraent to police functions.
Huxley stated that since a large proportion of the prole-
tariat were steeped in "misery and degradation," the sup-
pression of public education would disrupt the social peace

^lbid., p. 100.
^Huxley, Thoraas Huxley, I, 347; See Cyril Bibby, T. H.
Huxley; Scientist, Huraanist, and Educator (New York, 1960),
passim.
Q
Bibby, Huxley, p- 51.
Spencer, An Autobiography, II, 232.
 69
of the state, especially since the socialistraoveraentwas
"stirring European society to its depths." He concluded
that if the governraent was to provide the greatest happi-
ness for the greatest number, government regulation was
inescapable.

The debate between Huxley and Spencer was not taken up

again until 1888 when Huxley in his article "The Struggle
for Existence in Society" first intimated that he had com-
pletely rejected the Spencerian system. In this article,
Huxley denied that Darwinism could be projected into society
as a standard for being and raorality, for nature was not
benevolent as Spencer had stated. It was evil and had
caused the destruction of thousands of species. 2
It is obvious in this article that Huxley interpreted
Darwinism as the Spencerian struggle, that is, as the strug-
gle among individuals.13 He advocated that society should
be organized to fight against this struggle. Progress in
the sphere of raan was the checking of natural selection;
raan progressed by a social evolution rather than a biologi-
cal evolution. 14 Organization would involve state

William Irvine, Thomas Henry Huxley (London, 1960),

p. 25; See Jay Runney, Herbert Spencer's Sociology (New York,
1965), pp. 47-49, originally published in 1937.
•'•^Thoraas Huxley, "The Struggle for Existence: A Pro-
grarame," Nineteenth Century, XXIII (1888), 161-165.
•'•-^lbid. , p. 166.
-"•^lbid., p. 165.
 70
intervention, especially in helping the condition of the
poor.

This article demonstrated the tension that Huxley felt

in the individual Darwinian doctrine. He had seen the ap-
plication of Louis Pasteur's ideas regarding the cause and
prevention of disease hindered partly because of Spencerian
doctrine. He stated, "the opposition which, as I see frora
the English papers, is threatened has really for the raost
part nothing to do either with M. Pasteur's merits or with
the efficacy of his method of treating hydrophobia. It
proceeds partly from the fanatics of laissez-faire, who
think it better to rot and die than to be kept whole and
lively by State interference." Upon the basis of the
doctrine of individual Darwinism Spencer opposed state-
education, poor laws, regulation of housing conditions,
and even the protection of the 'ignorant' from medicai
quacks. Huxley thought that individual Darwinism destroyed
the dignity of an individual. In a letter entitled "Rea-
soned Savagery," published in the Daily Telegraph, February
9, 1890, Huxley charged Spencer with propagandizing "brutal
individualism" and accused Spencer of having a "reasoned

savagery. «17

^^lbid., p. 172.
•^^T. Huxley to Lord Major, June 25, 1889, in Huxley,
Thomas Huxley, II, 254-256.
17
Spencer, Spencer, II, 34.
 71

By the time of his Roraanes Lecture in 1893, the case

against the Spencerian systera was occupying his whole imagi-

nation. The thesis of his Romanes Lecture, which was en-

titled "Evolution and Ethics," was evolution versus ethics.

Huxley stated that theraoveraentof nature by the Darwinian

process was an advanceraent by way of evil. Man was the

ultimate in the evolutionary process in that he excelled

over the ape and the tiger in those qualities that were

associated with the animals, which included "ruthless and

ferocious destructiveness when his anger is roused by oppo-

sition." 18 Huxley continued:

Social progress raeans a checking of the cosmic

process at every step and the substitution for
it of another, which may be called the ethical
process; the end of which is not the survival
of those who raay happen to be the fittest . . .
but of those who may happen to be the best. . . .
[The] ethical progress of society depends, not
on imitating the cosmic process, still less in
running away frora it, but in corabating it.l^

Politically he declared that "fanatical individualism" was

absurd, because Spencer patterned moral progress upon the

doctrine of Darwinism and thus made the individual heedless

20
of his obligations to others.

•""^Thoraas Huxley, Evolution and Ethics, and other

Essays (New York, 1894), pp. 51-52.

•'•^lbid. , pp. 81, 83.

^^lbid., p. 82.
 72
After Huxley's death, papers were found in which he
seemed to equate collective Darwinism with the ethicai pro-
cess he had spoken of in the Romanes Lecture. He stated
that in civilized society intra-state struggle was largely
replaced by inter-state struggle. This latter struggle,
Huxley wrote, was usually won by the ethically superior. ^•'^
Darwinism was again associated with progress, but progress
was determined by inter-state struggle, not the Spencerian
struggle.

Another eminent scientist who rejected Spencer's phi-

losophy because of its inadequacy in meeting the social
problems of the late nineteenth century was Alfred Russel
Wallace. Before 1881, Wallace was a devout Spencerian. In
fact he named his son, who was born in 1867, Herbert
Spencer. 22 He also had a great desire to formulate social
reforras, but he was penned in by the do-nothing philosophy
of Spencer. Then in 1881 he read Henry George's Progress
and Poverty which, he said, refuted the conclusions of the
classical econoraists, thus knocking the very foundation out
from under Spencer's philosophical systera. In 1889 he pos-
tulated that the socialistic state could bring about the

^ Williara Irvine, Apes, Angels, and Victorians; The

Story of Darwin, Huxley, and Evolution (New York, 1955),
p. 351.
^^A. R. Wallace to C. Darwin, October 1, 1867, in
Wallace, Wallace, p. 155.
 73
best selections, a coraplete reverse of the Spencerian sys-
23
tera. Even after the rejection of Spencer's systera, he
did not support collective Darwinisra, but instead he advo-
cated another individual Darwinian systera. The difference
between Wallace's and Spencer's social theories was that in
the forraer the state controlled the struggle and guaranteed
each individual an equal opportunity. ^^*
The developraent of Darwinisra in the writings of Huxley
and Wallace was priraarily a rejection of the Spencerian sys-
tera in favor of another social theory. Neither drearaed of
applying Darwinisra to his personal belief in British iraperi-
alisra. Huxley was a Liberal, but he hated Gladstone's Lib-
eralisra and had a strong iraperialistic bias, expressing a
pro-Disraeli sentiraent and giving approval to the policies
25
of Salisbury and Joseph Chamberlain. But he did not
justify his iraperialisra with Darwinian doctrine. Wallace
was an anti-imperialist and a strong supporter of

23
A. R. Wallace to C. Darwm, July 9, 1881, Ibid. , pp.
260-261; Wilraa George, Biologist Philosopher; A Study of
the Life and Writings of Alfred Russel Wallace (New York,
1964) , pp. 220-225, 269.
24
Alfred Russel Wallace, Studies, Scientific and
Social (2 vols.; London, 1900), II, 513-516.
25
T. Huxley to his daughter, Deceraber 7, 1879, and
Huxley to his son, December, 1879, in Huxley, Thomas Huxley,
I, 524-525; Irvine, Apes, Angels, and Victorians, p. 332.
 74
26
Gladstone. To Wallace iraperialism was a policy propa-
gandized "to distract attention from the starvation and
wretchedness and death-dealing trades at horae and thinly-
veiled slavery in raany of [England's] tropical or sub-
tropical colonies." However Wallace did not justify his
anti-imperialistic sentiment with Darwinism. The identifi-
cation of imperialisra with the Darwinian doctrine first
required the destruction of Gladstonian Liberalism. This
destruction found its roots in the split of the Liberal
party over Gladstone's struggle for Irish Horae Rule, 1886-
1894.

From the close of 1885 until the end of Gladstone's

official career in 1894, Irish Home Rule was the dominant
political issue. During this period Gladstone dedicated
his full power and energy in an effort to settle this issue.
The political and economic grievances of the Irish had re-
sulted in mob demonstrations andraurderswhich threatened
to destroy the peace and harraony of England. There were
cries frora the Irish to repeal the union with Great Britain
28
which had been established in 1800. To resolve the Irish

^^Alfred Russel Wallace, "Why I Voted for Mr. Glad-

stone," Nineteenth Century, XXXII (1892), 182-185.
^ Alfred Russel Wallace, The Wonderful Century, The
Age of New Ideas in Science and Invention (London, 1902),
pT 466.
28
Strauss, Joseph Charaberlain, p. 37.
 75
problem Gladstone proposed in his Home Rule Bill of 1886
the creation of an Irish Parliament in Dublin which would
have complete control of doraestic affairs.^^ This bill was
based upon Gladstone's belief that the empire should be a
league of autonomous dominions. Gladstone's effort to get
this bill passed resulted in a split in the Liberal party.
An anti-Gladstone element in the Liberal party, the Liberal
Unionists, allied theraselves with the Conservatives to de-
feat the bill. This faction was led by Joseph Charaberlain,
a man known priraarily as a radical reforraer and an opponent
of the Manchester School. The denial of self-government to
Ireland became part of the larger issue of imperialism.
The Liberal Unionists, particularly Chamberlain, challenged
31
Gladstone's concept of the empire and imperialism.
On July 8, 1886, Charaberlain, lecturing on the Irish
Home Rule Bill, stated:
If to-morrow any one of the Legislative Assem-
blies of the different provinces in Australia
were to pass a resolution that they desired to
be separate, do you suppose that we should

^^lbid., pp. 48-49.

^^R. E. Robinson, "Imperial Problems in British Poli-
tics, 1880-1895," CHBE, III, 156-157; Haraer, John Morley,
p. 322.
^•'•Strauss, Joseph Chamberlain, pp. 48-49; Chamberlain's

Boyd ,_
in Bingley Hall, July 9, 1906, ibid., II, 361-362.
 76
send an army to compel them to remain as they
are? Not a bit of it. The tie which binds us
to Australia is a sentimental tie. That is
very valuable, and I hope it may long continue
to exist. But I hope raore than that. I hope
we raay be able to strengthen it; I hope we raay
be able sooner or later to federate, to bring
together, all these great independencies of
the British Erapire into one suprerae and Ira-
perial Parliament, so that they shouid be
units of one body. . . . That is what I hope,
but there is very little hope for it if you
weaken the ties which now bind the central
portion of the Empire together.^^

Gladstone's Home Rule Bill had the effect of freeing

most Liberal iraperialists frora a frustrating association

with the Gladstonian Liberals. The bill itself was defeated

by thirty votes; ninety-three Liberal Unionists voted with

the Conservative party. Gladstone imraediately dissolved

Parliament, claiming that the Liberal Unionists had de-

serted the Liberal creed, that is, the creed of the Man-

chester School. 33 By 1887 the Liberal Unionists formed

with the Conservatives an alliance which was to control

the government for the rest of the century except for a

34
brief Liberal interlude during the years 1892-1895.

32
Chamberlain's speech at Rawtenstall, July 8, 1886,
in Charaberlain, Mr. Charaberlain's Speeches, I, 276-278.
"^^Eyck, Gladstone, pp. 402-403.

^^Robinson, "Iraperial Probleras in British Politics,

1880-1895," CHBE, III, 156-158.
 77
The Unionists were further coraraitted to an iraperialis-
tic policy, because its political strength was concentrated
in the metropolitan and urban constituencies. In these con-
stituencies, it was coraraonly believed that Gladstone's Horae
Rule Bill was dictated by the Irish raob. Instead of estab-
lishing law and order, by force if necessary, and protecting
the property and personal rights of the landed and business
interests, Gladstone seeraed to surrender to the "masses."
Gladstone's continued struggie for Irish Horae Rule during

the period 1886-1893 only further alienated the coraraercial

and business interests.35 This development had particular
36
influence upon British foreign policy.
British commercial and urban centers began to propa-
gandize an anti-Gladstonian doctrine of a strong unified
erapire and an expansionist policy. The conflict between
British free trade and colonial and foreign protectionisra
seeraed to place their interests in a chaotic condition.
During the last thirty years of the nineteenth century,
Gerraany and the United States becarae serious economic com-
petitors, and France was threatening to become one also.
These three countries passed high tariffs to exclude the

^^lbid., p. 158.
Eyck, Gladstone, p. 408; See Victor Berard, British
Imperialisra and Coraraercial Supremacy, trans. by H. W.
Foskett (New York, 1906), passi" T
 78
products of rivals: Germany in 1879 and particularly in
1885, France in 1882, and the United States in 1891 with the
McKinley tariff and in 1897 with the Dingley tariff. Other
European countries, such as Italy, Austria-Hungary, and
Russia, followed their protective policy. Thus British raan-
ufacturers were practically eliminated frora European and
American markets and had to compete seriously with her pro-
tected industrial rivals in her own free-trade market and
in the colonial markets. As the protectionist nations,
particularly France and Germany, expanded into Africa, there
were cries frora the coraraercial centers for Britain to safe-
guard this region. These cries were intensified when the
blame for the depression and uneraployraent of 1894-1895 was
placed on foreign corapetition and tariffs. Imperial expan-

sion was advocated as a raeans of securing British prosperity

38
and employment. In the 1890's the Presidents of the
London and Liverpool Chambers of Comraerce urged on Salisbury
"the absolute necessity, for the prosperity of [England]
that new avenues for coraraerce such as in East Equatorial

37
Bernard Serarael, Iraperialisra and Social Reform,
English Social-Imperial Thought, 1895-1915 (Carabridge,
1960) , pp. 86-89.
3fi
Robinson, "Iraperial Problems in British Politics,
1880-1895," CHBE, III, 158-159; "Great Britain's Policy
in Africa," The Tiraes, August 22, 1888, p. 8.
 79
Africa should be opened up, in view of the hostile tariffs
with which British raanufacturers are being everywhere con-
39
fronted." Manchester, Glasgow, Birraingham, Edinburgh,
and other coramercial centers followed with sirailar pleas.
On April 20, 1893, the London Charaber of Comraerce reported:
[There] is practicaily no raiddle course for this
country, between a reversal of the free-trade
policy to which it is pledged, on the one hand,
and a prudent but continuous territorial exten-
sion for the creation of new raarkets, on the
other hand. This policy is not so rauch one of
our own selection, . . . [but] as one forced
upon us by the exclusive econoraic systems of
other countries, including our own colonies.^^
By 1888, Chamberlain and Salisbury, the leaders of the
Unionists, were speaking the language of the comraercial
41
centers. In 1895, Salisbury declared in the House of
Lords:
It is [Governraent's] business in all these
new [African] countries to raake smooth the paths
for British coraraerce, British enterprise, the
application of British capital, at a time when
other paths, other outlets for the coraraercial
energies of our race are being gradually closed
by the coraraercial principles which are gaining
raore and raore adhesion. Everywhere we see the
advance of coraraerce checked by the enormous
growth which the doctrines of Protection are ob-
taining. We see it with our three great comraer-
cial rivals, France, Germany, and America. The

39
F. D. Lugard, The Rise of Our East African Empire,
Early Efforts in Nyasaland and Uganda (2 vols.; London,
1893) , I, 379-380.
^^lbid., I, 380.
Robinson, "Imperiai Problems in British Politics,
1880-1895," CHBE, III, 160.
 80
doctrines of Protection are stronger and
stronger, and operate to the exclusion of Brit-
ish commerce wherever their power extends. We
see even in our own colonies the same sinister
influence at work.42

In 1892, Chamberlain proclairaed to a Birrainghara audience:

I should like to say . . . [that] all ques-
tions which affect the extension of the Erapire,
have a very pressing interest for working men.
Those people who want you to have a little
Empireraustraakeup their mind that with a lit-
tle Empire will go a little trade. This United
Kingdom of ours is, after all, but a small place
— i t is but a raere speck upon the surface of the
globe—and it would be absolutely impossible that
from our resources alone we could find employraent
for our crowded population of forty millions of
souls. No; your hope of continuous employment
depends upon our foreign comraerce, and now that
other nations are ciosing their ports to us, and
everywhere we see they are endeavouring to create
a raonopoly for their own benefit—I say that the
future of the working classes of this country de-
pends upon our success inraaintainingthe Empire
as it at present stands, and in taking every
wise and legitimate opportunity of extending it.^^
Chamberlain propagandized that the Erapire was "the greatest
business organization in the world." 44 When the Liberal
Unionists joined the Conservative cabinet in 1895,
Chamberlain, receiving the Colonial Office, intensified the

^^4 Hansard, XXX, 698-699.

Lugard, The Rise of Our East African Empire, I, 381.
A. F. Madden, "Changing Attitudes and Widening Re-
sponsibilities, 1895-1914," CHBE, III, 381; See J. L. Garvin,
The Life of Joseph Chamberlain (3 vols.; London, 1932-1934),
II, 466-467.
 81
drive for state-ordered development of the British colonial
45
estate.

The commercial and business interests had a strong in-

fluence upon the Unionists. Charaberlainite political
thought, or, as Chamberiain called it, the Birrainghara School,
exerted a gigantic influence in the late nineteenth century.
Beside advocating a strong empire, the Birmingham School
also supported social reforms. During the Conservative
adrainistration of 1886-1892, the Liberal Unionists were able
to persuade Salisbury to carry out raany radical pieces of
legislation which were anti-Gladstonian. Charaberlain's
concept of social reforra and a strong centralized govern-
raent coincided with the growing tendency in British society
. ^ T , .. . 48
to favor collectivism.
It was within this political framework of the Birming-
ham School that Benjamin Kidd wrote Social Evolution (1894).
Kidd was a Liberal who despised the dograa of the Manchester

^^4 Hansard, XXXVI, 640-642.

4 fi
Charaberlain's speech in Birmingham, May 28, 1888, in
Chamberlain, Mr. Chamberlain's Speeches, I, 298-313; Chamber-
lain's speech in Bingley Hall, July 9, 1906, Ibid., II, 361-
372.
^^Garvin, Joseph Chamberlain, II, 423; McDowell, Brit-
ish Conservatism, pp. 140-142, 147.
^^Paul Knaplund, The British Empire, 1815-1939 (New
York, 1941), p. 326.
 82
School and was very violent in his anti-Gladstone proclama-
49
tions. in 1910, he wrote, "For raore than a century Lib-
eralism of the Gladstonian type has contributed not a single
idea to the polical thought or action of the world."^^
Kidd favored the Chamberlainite political views. In fact,
when in 1903 Charaberlain proposed to destroy the free trade
favored by the Manchester School and to give the colonies a
preferential tariff as a step towards imperial union, Kidd
strongly supported him. 51 In his book Social Evolution, he
synthesized the concepts of the Birrainghara School and the
ideas of the raan whora he considered had dorainated Darwinian
science after Darwin, Dr. August Weisraann.52 Kidd's thesis
in this book, which in four years went into nineteen edi-
tions, was that the quality which gave superiority to a so-
ciety or race was deterrained by the willingness of the
m.embers to subordinate personal interests to the interest
of society. Thus Kidd agreed with Huxley that progress in

Benjamin Kidd, "A National Policy," Fortnightly Re-

view, XCIII (1910), 602-614; Brinton, English Political
Thought, p. 287.
^^lbid., p. 603.
^•^Benjarain Kidd, "Imperial Policy and Free Trade,"
Nineteenth Century, LIV (1903), 33-54; Benjarain Kidd, "The
Larger Basis of Colonial Preference," Nineteenth Century,
LV (1904), 12-29.
^^Benjarain Kidd, "Darwin's Successor at Horae," Review
of Reviews, II (1890), 647-650.
 83
the sphere of man was a social progress.^"^ But Kidd also
stated that social progress was determined by struggle.
Without struggle, there was no progress. Kidd deduced this
concept from the scientific studies of Weismann, who had
intensified the Darwinian doctrine of struggle. Darwin,
late in his life, had admitted other causes of progress
beside struggie, such as sexual selection and use-
inheritance, but Weismann recognized no other cause of

progress except the struggle for existence. When struggle

stopped, progress ceased and retrogression took its place. 54
Kidd wrote, "When there is progress there must inevitably
be selection, and selection in its turn involves corapeti-
tion of some kind." Kidd agreed with Spencer that intra-
state struggle was a necessity for progress. It was this
intra-state competition that falsified the socialistic doc-
trine, for sociaiism desired to eliminate competition,
which consequently eliminated progress. Kidd also pointed
out, however, that the Spencerian doctrine of laissez-faire
was useless and nonsensical. 57 The state had to provide a

^^Benjamin Kidd, Social Evolution (2nd ed.; New York,

1894) , pp. 306-307; Eli Halévy, Imperialisra and the Rise
of Labour (New York, 1951), p. 19.
^^MacKintosh, From Comte to Benjarain Kidd, pp. 234-257.
^^Kidd, Social Evolution, pp. 36-39.
^^lbid., pp. 254-255.
^^lbid., pp. 214-215.
 84
society in which all would have equal opportunities for cora-
.... 58
petition. Spencerian struggle, continued Kidd, was sanc-
tified by reason as it grew out of the Bentharaite philosophy
in which reason was a pagan god to be worshipped. Reason
taught that the individual should be selfish, should be con-
cerned with his egotistial welfare, and should think of the
Darwinian struggle as hiraself against the whole world.^^
If that was the nature of progress, the Spencerian corapeti-
tion, as pointed out by Huxley, could never have created
society and a coraplete adherence to this doctrine would
ultimately destroy society. But instead society was an
organic growth sanctified not by reason, but by religion.
Religion transcended the individual frora personal self-
centeredness to a concern for society and a concern for
other individuals.
A religion is a forra of belief, providing an
ultra-rational sanction for that large class
of conduct in the individual where his inter-
ests and the interests of the social organisra
are antagonistic, and by which the former are
rendered subordinate to the latter in the gen-
eral interests of the evolution which the race
is undergoing.61
Inter-state struggle, which was as iraportant as intra-
state struggle, was won by the nations that had the highest

^^lbid., p. 152.
^^lbid., pp. 66-67.
^^lbid., p. 110.
^•^lbid., p. 111.
 85
levels of religion. More specifically Kidd stated that
collective Darwinian struggles were being won by the Teu-
tonic peoples, because they had the highest level of reli-
gion—the religion of the Reforraation. ^^ This was
illustrated by the struggles between England and France in
the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries and, between
Gerraany and France in 1870. Although France had the higher
intellectual capacity, she could not win the collective
Darwinian struggle with England or Gerraany because of her
Roman Catholic religion.
Kidd's religious ideas seem to be another concept he
adopted from Weisraann. In a personal interview with
Weismann in 1890, Kidd reported:
With regard to the part which, from the point
of view of the Darwinian, religion had played in
the evolution of modern society, Professor Weis-
raann was very decided in his views. "I certainly
think," he said, "that religion has been a most
iraportant factor on the side of human evolution."
"You say 'has been.' Do you consider that it
will continue to be a necessity of society?"
The reply, after a short pause, was a decided
affirmative.
"There will," he said, "always reraain behind
soraething which there is no hope that science
will ever explain, and this will continue to
forra the basis of religion. . . . "

^^lbid., p. 264.
^^lbid., pp. 303-304
^"^lbid. , pp. 298-303.
 86
Looking at the history of Europe frora the
point of view of the Darwinian, Professor
Weisraann was inclined to rank the Reforraation
amongst the greatest of the social evolution-
ary forces of modern tiraes. The raoral idea
necessary to society had been preserved, and
more room for expansion had been obtained for
the human raind, As a sociologist he said he
considered the new churches of Gerraany and
England as constituting a higher order of
social force than that contributed by Roraan
Catholicisra.^^
It was because of England's religion that Kidd justi-
fied British iraperialistic policy, not because collective
66
Darwinism justified aggressive foreign policy. Because
of England's religion she could bring qualities such as
humanity, strength, righteousness, and devotion, without
having the concept of exploitation, into those nations that
were underdeveloped, because they were low in the religious
evolutionary scale. This religious view of Kidd was not
esoteric. From 1883 to 1890 there was an extraordinary
revival of religious and humanitarian interest in Africa.
Ever since the 1870's the philanthropists and anti-slavers
had besieged the government to civilize Africa, but when
the protectionists expanded into Africa they intensified
^ . iraportunities.
their • ^ -^- 67

^^Kidd, "Darwin's Successor at Horae," pp. 648-649.

^^Kidd, Social Evolution, pp. 339-350.
^^Robinson, "Imperial Problems in Politics, 1880-1895,"
CHBE, III, 158-159.
 87
The popularity of Social Evolution was basically be-

cause of its religious element, not its iraperialistic

1 ..68
element. A writer of the Critics recoramended "Social

Evolution to the earnest attention of [the] religious teach-

ers of the people, for [it is] wise and inspiring."^^ The

Darwinian philosophy had shaken or destroyed the faith of

many religious individuals, who were not prepared to stand

against the overwhelraing arguraents of the scientists. Many

of these people, observed John A. Hobson, were "willing to

grasp eagerly at a theory which [would] save their religious

systera in a manner which seeras consistent with the mainte-

70
nance of modern culture." Kidd's Social Evolution seemed
to many to be that systera.

Kidd's priraary objective in writing Social Evolution

was to set up a social theory that fit the political atraos-

phere of the 1890's, not to justify British iraperialisra.

To a Daily Chronicle interviewer he stated, "If you ask me

to describe 'Social Evolution' in a word, I should say that

it is an endeavor to give a biological basis to our social

68
"The Forgotten Fact of Social Evolution," Spectator,
LXXII (1894), 292-293; "Is Pure Selfishness Natural,"
Spectator, LXXII (1894), 154; "Social Evolution," Critics,
XXI (1894) , 231; "Social Evolution," Popular Science Monthly,
XLV (1894) , 557-558; W. D. Le Suer, "Kidd on 'Social Evolu-
tion,'" Popular Science Monthly, XLVIII (1895), 38-48.
69
"Social Evolution," Critics, p. 231.
70 . . .
Richard Hofstader, Social Darwinism in American
Thought (2nd ed.; New York, 1959), p. 101.
 88
71
science." As a social theory, the imperialistic eleraents
were suppressed, which in the first place only encorapassed
a comparitively few pages. Karl Pearson and Francis Galton,
both collective Darwinists, considered Kidd in his Social
Evolution as the leading exponent of individual Darwinism
in the 1890's.72 Even Robert MacKintosh's book Frora Comte
to Benjamin Kidd, The Appeal to Biology or Evolution for
Human Guidance (1899), which gave a good account of Kidd's
system, did not study Kidd's collective Darwinism or Kidd's
justification of British imperialisra; the book only gave
the arguments for intra-state struggle and the arguments
against the socialistic state.73 In Imperialism, A Study
(1902) J. A. Hobson, who wrote a chapter analyzing British
collective Darwinisra, did not identify Kidd as a collective
Darwinist, arguing that Kidd's contribution to the imperi-
alistic moveraent of the late nineteenth century was only in
74
his book The Control of the Tropics (1898).

^•^Karl Pearson, "Socialisra and Natural Selection,"

Fortnightly Review, LVI (1894), 2.
^^C. P. Blacker, Eugenics: Galton and After (Cam-
bridge, Massachusetts, 1952), p. 90; Pearson, "Socialism
and Natural Selection," p. 8.
^^MacKintosh, Frora Comte to Benjarain Kidd, pp. 258-277;
See "The Forgotten Fact of Social Evolution, Spectator,
LXXII (1894), 292-293; "Kidd's Social Evolution, Nation,
LVIII (1894) , 294-295.
^^J. A. Hobson, Iraperialism, A Study (3rd ed.; London,
1938) , pp. 226-227.
 89
The Control of the Tropics, which contained articles
that Kidd had forraerly published in The Tiraes, depicted the
mentality of the Birraingham School raore clearly than Social
Evolution, for it propagandized its comraercial interests
and the leadership's responsibility in Africa.^^ Kidd wrote
that the overpopulation of the world had created a serious
international rivalry for the trade and coramercial interests
76
in the tropics. The trade in this area was very important
for Britain. If defeated, she would be excluded frora the
tropics because of protective tariffs, and this barrier
77

would have repercussions on the British econoray.

Besides these very iraportant comraercial and business
interests, England had a raoral responsibility to civilize
these regions. Kidd pointed to the undeveloped possibil-
ities of Haiti, the West Indies, and Central and South Amer-
ica to deraonstrate that the tropical races could not
administer themselves; thus it was necessary that England
and America govern them out of humanitarian reasons.7 8 In

75
Strauss, Joseph Charaberlain, p. 132. "Mr. Kidd on
the Control of the Tropics," Spectator, LXXXI (1899), 235-
236; "The Control of the Tropics," Spectator, LXXXII (1899),
460.
Benjarain Kidd, The Control of the Tropics (London,
1898) , pp. 2-17.
Ibid., p. 32.
^^lbid., pp. 53-57.
 90
this book Kidd's justification of colonies was not based on
collective Darwinism, but on raaterial and coraraercial neces-
sity and because England was the most efficient governing
country as proven by her adrainistration in Egypt and
79
India.'^

Kidd's "trustee for civilization" principle was a very

common arguraent during the late nineteenth century, and was
especially used araong the exponents of the Birrainghara
80
School. Charaberlain declared in 1898 that England was
"the greatest of governing races the world has ever seen"
and "predestined by [her] defects as well as [her] virtues
81
to spread over the habitable globe." England had proven
herself administratively, Charaberlain stated, by her rule
in Egypt and Uganda. Since she was the best administrator,
he continued, she had a responsibility to "civilize the
backward people of the globe." 82
Through Benjarain Kidd's writings, the Darwinian philos-
ophy was adapted to the dominant political thought of the
1890's, the Birminghara School. The political climate was
anti-Gladstonian, and the Manchester School was looked upon

Ibid.
80
Madden, "Changing Attitudes and Widening Responsi-
bilities, 1895-1914," CHBE, III, 347.
Ibid.
Joseph Chamberlain, "A Bill for the Weakening of the
Empire," Nineteenth Century, XXXIII (1893), 546; Faber, Th£
Vision and the Need, pp. 76-77.
 91
with contempt. The defection of the Liberal Unionists had
greatly diminished the power of the Gladstonians, and this
power was further dirainished by Rosebery and the Liberal
imperialists, who followed the Conservative policy of the
Birraingham School and who gained the ieadership of the Lib-
83
eral party in 1894. The raost proraising new leaders of
the Liberal party, H. H. Asquith, R. B. Haldane, and Edward
Grey confessed theraselves to be imperialists. 84 Gladstonian
Liberalisra was for theraoraentsuppressed. Gladstone wrote
on February 9, 1894:
Whether it be true that everyone of ray best
friends is against rae I do not know. I admit I
ara without support. But the world of today is
not the world in which I was bred and trained
and have principally lived. It is a world which
I have had rauch difficulty in keeping on terras
with and those difficulties increase. . . . I
will not draw coraparisons. I take the worst at
the worst and say that if the whole generation
be against rae, even that is far better than
that I should with ray eyes open (to say nothing
of this country) do anything . . . to accelerate,
exasperate, widen or preraaturely take or verge
towards taking a part in the controversies of
blood which we all fear and seem to see are
hanging over Europe.85

Man had grown sceptical toward the idealisra of Gladstone and

the Manchester School. Most politicians would have agreed

83
Haraer, John Morley, p. 330.
^^Robinson, "Imperial Problems in British Politics,
1880-1895," CHBE, III, 157; Knaplund, The British Empire,
1815-1939, p. 325.
^^Knaplund, Gladstone's Foreign Policy, pp. 266-267.
 92
with Otto von Bisraarck's son when he stated, "To discuss
the external policy of a great nation with Mr. Gladstone is
pointless, because his raind simply wanders from the sub-
ject."^^

It was only a raatter of time before Darwinisra would be

used to justify British iraperialisra. Kidd had taken a sraall
step in that direction, but it was a socialist, Karl Pearson,
who first completely associated Darwinisra and iraperialism.
Most socialists suspected imperialisra of being a forra
of capitalism in "its raost predatory and militant point"
and as a great obstacle to social reforms. But there were
some socialists who supported the principles of the Birraing-
hcim School, especially when the Liberal imperialists ex-
pounded them. The Fabians were a few of these.87 Pearson
was also one. In "Socialisra in Theory and Practice" (1884) ,
Pearson in an address to London workers proclaimed, "Some
of you may be indifferent to the great erapire of England,
but let me assure you that small as in sorae cases is the
corafort of the English working classes, it is on the average
88
l a r g e corapared w i t h t h a t o f a n i n f e r i o r r a c e . "

^^Eyck, Gladstone, p. 270.

^^Madden, "Changing A t t i t u d e s and Widening R e s p o n s i -

b i l i t i e s , 1 8 9 4 - 1 9 1 4 , " CHBE, I I I , 348-349; Serarael, I r a p e r i -
a l i s m and S o c i a l Reforra, p p . 6 4 - 7 2 .
88 Semmel, I r a p e r i a l i s r a and S o c i a l Reform, p . 42.
 93
Pearson was also a collective Darwinist who followed
the lead of Francis Galton as the latter propagandized
eugenic concepts. The eugenic movement, which was the first
to teach collective Darwinism, was very unpopular in the
nineteenth century. The idea of state-intervention in raar-
riage and family institutions to set up huraan breeding
farras was very distasteful to the Victorians. Because of
this attitude, Galton did not become completely dedicated
to his doctrine until the last decade of his life, 1901-
89
1911. Thus the eugenic moveraent did not raake a contribu-
tion to English nineteenth century thought, except through
Pearson.
Around 1894 Pearson began contributing many articles
propagandizing collective Darwinism. The articles savagely
criticized the individual Darwinism of the Manchester School
and Kidd's Social Evolution. In "Socialism and Natural
Selection," Pearson, being also a well known mathematician,
attacked individual Darwinism by a very simple mathematical
process. He presented a mortality chart to determine the
percentage of those elirainated by intra-state struggle.
The chart showed 1000 English males born in the sarae year
90
and the age they died.

^^Blacker, Eugenics, p. 110.

^^Karl Pearson, "Socialisra and Natural Selection,"
p. 13
 94
Mortality of old age centering about 67 484 deaths
Mortality of middle age 41 173 deaths
Mortality of youth 22 51 deaths
Mortality of children 6 46 deaths
Mortaiity of infancy — 246 deaths
Pearson demonstrated that this table showed that only 27
percent of the deaths could possibly be attributed to intra-
state competition since the infants died before struggle and
the old and most of the middle aged had already reproduced.
Thus natural selection, continued Pearson, was not a main
factor within the state, because group selection was more
important than internal selection. 92 Consequently the state
should be established according to the socialistic fraraework,
which would eliminate intra-state struggle and be best
fitted for inter-state struggle. Pearson justified collec-
tive Darwinisra by quoting many passages from The Descent of
Man in which Darwin showed the state to be greater than the
individual. It raust be pointed out, however, that before
1900 Pearson's collective Darwinisra was siraply a justifica-
tion of socialisra. He was not concerned with the inter-
national implications of collective Darwinism. When he
spoke of them, it was only superficiaily and abstractly and
only as a justification of socialism. It was the Boer War
that awakened Pearson to the harsh reality of what collec-
tive Darwinism iraplied.

^•'•Ibid. , p. 14.
^^lbid., p. 16.
 95
The Boer War had its roots in the large number of
British people or Uitlanders, as they came to be called,
who entered the Transvaal after 1885 to work in the raines
of the Rand. The Transvaal governraent, seeing their state
overwhelraed by these Uitlanders, denied theraajorityof
thera full citizenship in order toraaintainpolitical con-
trol. This situation created agitation between the Boers
and the Uitlanders. The Uitlanders forraed the Transvaal
National Union for the purpose of obtaining citizenship and
a "redress of all grievance." This organization made con-
stant deraands that the British governraent use its suzerainty
over the Transvaai to settle the grievances of the
Uitlanders. These iraportunities fell upon deaf ears during
the Gladstone adrainistration of 1892-1894. But when the
Conservative party carae to power in 1895, the league inten-
sified its supplications. On March 24, 1899, a petition was
presented to the Queen which stated, "your Majesty's humble
petitioners beseech . . . measures which will secure the
speedy reforra of the abuses complained of and to obtain sub-

stantial guarantees frora the Government of the State for a

93
recognition of their rights as British subjects."
These appeals did affect the British government, pri-
marily because the Transvaal was strategically vital as a

^"^Grenville, Lord Salisbury and Foreign Policy, pp.

100, 242; Strauss, Joseph Charaberlain, p. 70.
 96
communication link with the Indian Empire. The Gladstone
government of 1880-1885 had given the Transvaal self-
governraent, although Britain retained suzerainty. This
policy seemed to undermine the British iraperial position
throughout southern Africa.^^ The Transvaal had grown to
be politically and coraraercially the raost powerful state in
South Africa. The wealth and power of the Transvaal were
seen as luring agents in forraulating a "United States of
South Africa" in which the colonies of South Africa would
be independent of British power and influence, a policy
which could have had political repercussion upon the Indian
95
Erapire. These iraperial thoughts were running through the
minds of the Conservatives as the Uitlanders sought British
96
aid in t h e i r struggle for p o l i t i c a l r i g h t s .

T h e T r a n s v a a l governraent, in an effort to elirainate

B r i t i s h i n f l u e n c e , agreed to give a five-year franchise if

E n g l a n d agreed to surrender her suzerainty. Britain refused

to y i e l d h e r last p o l i t i c a l rights in the Transvaal and p u t

p r e s s u r e o n that country to accept the terms stipulated in

a d i s p a t c h of Septeraber 8, 1 8 9 9 . The dispatch proposed

t h a t a f i v e - y e a r franchise be g u a r a n t e e d , that one-quarter

94Gallagher, Africa and the Victorians, pp. 71-72.

^^lbid., pp. 418, 431, 461.

^^John Gallagher and Ronald Robinson, "The Imperialisra
of Free Trade," Economic History Review, VI (1953), 3.
 97
of the seats in the Volksraad be guaranteed to the
Uitlanders, that an equal vote in the election of President
and Commandant be given to the Uitlanders, and that a legal
board of enquiry investigate to raake sure that these terras
were carried out. Because the dispatch stipuiated terras
that would increase the influence of Britain, it was ac-
cepted by the Boers as a declaration of war. On October 9,
1899, Stephanus Johannes Paulus Kruger, the President of
Q7

the Transvaal, declared war on Great Britain. For the

first few raonths of the war, the sraall British forces were
repeatedly defeated. It was in the pessiraisra of this polit-
ical atraosphere that Pearson gave in November, 1900, the
lecture National Life From the Standpoint of Science, which
was published as a book in 1901. This work was an expres-
sion of the demoralizing effect that the Boer War had upon
the British raentality. Concerning National Life, Karl
Pearson's son wrote:
There is a strain of pessiraisra now, in his
discussion of national and social probleras,
which was undoubtedly associated with eraotions
roused by the South African War. That realiza-
tion of failure of national shortcoraing and
muddle-headedness which was brought home to the
country in 1900 was certainly shared fully [by]
Pearson. This roused in him a national self-
consciousness, a feeling of patriotisra, with an
outlook on erapire and the use of colonies which

^"^Grenville, Lord Salisbury and Foreign Policy, pp

252-253, 259-260, 263-264.
 98
we should perhans not expect from a study of his
early writings.98

Iri National Life Frora the Standpoint of Science,

Pearson patriotically defended British action in South
Africa by justifying the application of war in international
politics.

History shows rae one way, and one way only, in

which a high state of civilization has been pro-
duced, naraely, the struggle of race with race,
and the survival of the physically and mentality
fitter race. If you want to know whether the
lower races can evolve a higher type, I fear the
only course is to leave thera to fight it out
among themselves. . . .

[If there is no struggle] mankind will no longer

progress; there will be nothing to check the fer-
tility of inferior stocks; the relentless law of
heredity will not be controlled and guided by
natural selection.^^
Pearson understood the national and international iraplica-
tions of collective Darwinisra, because of the Boer War, but
he did not create a new school of thought in England. J. A.
Hobson in his Iraperialisra, A Study and L. T. Hobhouse in
his Deraocracy and Reaction (1905) each dedicated a chapter
to the refutation of collective Darwinisra and naraed only
one expounder of this doctrine, Karl Pearson. This raay

^^E. S. Pearson, Karl Pearson, An Appreciation of Some

Aspects of His Life and Work (Carabridge, 1938), p. 45.
^^Karl Pearson, National Life Frora the Standpoint of
Science (2nd ed.; London, 1905), pp. 21-22, 26-27.
^^^Hobson, Iraperialism, A Study, pp. 154, 157, 159, 161,
164, 173, 190; L. T. Hobhouse, Deraocracy and Reaction (New
York, 1905) , pp. 114-115.
 99
be because Pearson's Darwinisra not only advocated the unpopu-
lar eugenic doctrine, but even opposed the principle of the
Birmingham School. it seems more likely, however, that
it was because the hurailiating defeats of the British
forces in the early period of the war and then the long-
drawn-out war caused English imperial enthusiasra to wilt,
especially since the European nations were condemning
British policy as despotic.

In this light, Williara L. Strauss' thesis that collec-

tive Darwinism becarae a popular theory seems invaiid.
Strauss based this thesis on the supposition that Chamber-
lain adopted Social Darwinism in his imperial arguments
during his visit to South Africa after the Boer War. 102
Strauss made this assuraption on the basis of one, and only
one, lecture given by Charaberlain in which he stated:
Between [the British and the Boer people] there
raust be a struggle, a rivalry. As long as human
nature is what it is, it was inevitable that in
the clash of interests there should be this
struggle for supremacy, and it had to be fought
out. We are neither of us nations to surrender
without a fight, and in ray opinion, this terri-
ble war, which we all deplore, was in the nature
of things inevitable, and no statesmanship could
have perraanently prevented it. Neither would
yield but to a trial of strength.103

•'•^•'"See Karl Pearson, National Life, p. 50.

•'•^^Strauss, Joseph Charaberlain, p. 93.
•^^•^Chamberiain's speech at Durban, December 27, 1902,
in Chamberlain, Mr. Chamberlain's Speeches, II, 76-81
 100
While Chamberlain seemed to be speaking in the Darwinian
framework, a closer investigation reveals a different con-
clusion. First, Charaberlain stated that he had reached
this conclusion because the British and the Boers had inde-
pendent histories which spoke of the love of freedom, endur-
ance, independence, and seif reliance. It was these
qualities that made the war inevitable, not natural selec-
104
tion. Second, Chamberlain in his early political career
was foremost a radical social reformer. He knew and de-
spised the Spencerian philosophy, and he likely associated
Social Darwinism with this philosophy.
The Boer War was the decadence of the iraperialisra of
the late nineteenth century, not the fraraework for an ag-
gressive Darwinian doctrine. Britain won the war, but her
international prestige suffered and her army was discredited,
The repercussions of the war on the British public were cli-
maxed in the Liberal victory in the General Election of
1906. The raain reason was that the Conservative governraent
had justified the war on the grounds that the Uitlanders
deserved the franchise, a natural right as British

104iMd.
105Webb, My Apprenticeship, p. 120.
 101

subjects. After the war, no one in the Transvaal had

the franchise. Also, Chamberlain promised that eraployraent

would be provided in the raines of the Transvaal. Instead,

Chinese labor was imported after the war to work in the

gold mines. During the General Election of 1906 Liberal

posters of "a hideous yellow Chinese face" were circu-

107
lated. The sweeping Liberal-Labour Representation Com-

mittee's victory was the victory of the anti-imperialistic

concepts of the Manchester School and was the conclusion

10 8
to England's nineteenth century iraperialisra.

•'•^^Chamberlain's speech to the House of Coraraons,

October 19, 1899, in Charaberlain, Mr. Chamberlain's Speeches,
II, 12-22.
lO'^Thorton, The mperial dea and Its Eneraies, p. 108;
Somerville, English Thought, p. 190.

-"•^^Oliver MacDonagh, "The Anti-Imperialism of Free

Trade," Econoraic History Review, XIV (1962), 500.
 CONCLUSION

Victor Berard wrote in 1906:

[Darwinisra] is [the] doctrine which has reaily

created the Iraperialist fraraework of raind in the
nation; it is, at any rate, this pseudo-doctrine
which has brought about the acceptance of aggres-
sive Jingoisra as a vital necessity.l
Although Berard raade a very bold stateraent, it is evident
that Darwinism did not affect British imperialisra during
the period 1870-1900. The Manchester School had an effect
on the political thoughts of Darwin and Spencer, not vice
versa. The Birrainghara School had an effect upon the polit-
ical thoughts of Benjamin Kidd, not vice versa. The Boer
War had an effect on the political thoughts of Karl Pearson,
not vice versa. Instead, during the years 1870-1900
British iraperialisra had araoldingeffect upon the social
and political iraplications of Social Darwinisra. As a social
and political theory, Darwinisra itself had no substance or
content, but was adapted to already preconceived ideas.
What Berard, as raany other authors,raustevidently be
referring to is the pragraatic philosophy of the nineteenth
century. Pragraatisra deraanded a relative interpretation of
the universe--to do what was expedient for the raoment not
according to an absolute standard. For the late nineteenth

Berard, British Imperialisra and Comraercial Supreraacy,

p. 279.
102
 103
century had surrendered to materialisra and Realpolitik.^
Barzun wrote, "Divine right had descended to 'the people'
and in the forra of nationalisra was legitiraizing the asser-
tion of competitive wants and the virtue of cynicisra."^
Since pragraatism and Darwinism had coraraon roots in rational-
ism, and since Darwinisra described pragmatism biologically,
the confusion concerning Darwinism's effect upon British
imperialistic thought is perhaps understandable. During
the period 1870-1900 Darwinism had very little, if any,
effect on the development of British imperialism.

2
Barzun, Darwin, Marx, Wagner, pp. 131, 133; Hayes, A
Generation of Materialism, passira. ~
3
Barzun, Darwm, Marx, Wagner, p. 131.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Priraary Sources
"The Control of the Tropics." Spectator. LXXXII (1899),
460. -^

"The Forgotten Fact of Social Evolution." Spectator.

LXXII (1894), 292-293.
"Is Pure Selfishness Natural." Spectator. LXXII (1894),
77-78. -^
"Kidd's Social Evolution." Nation. LVII (1894), 294-295.
"Mr. Kidd on the Control of the Tropics." Spectator.
LXXXI (1898), 235-236.
"Social Evolution." Critics. XXI (1894), 231.
"Social Evolution." Popular Science Monthly. XLV (1894),
557-558.
Bagehot, Walter. Physics and Politics or Thoughts on the
Application of the Principles of "Natural Selection""
and "Inheritance" to Political Society. New York,
1948, originally published in 1867.
Berard, Victor. British Iraperialism and Coraraercial Suprera-
acy. Translated by H. W. Foskett. New York, 1906.
Box, Earnest Belfort. Reminiscences and Reflexions of a
Mid and Late Victorian. New York, 1967, originally
published in 1918.
Charaberlain, Joseph. "A Bill for the Weakening of Great
Britain." Nineteenth Century. XXXIII (1893), 545-
558.
Mr. Charaberlain's Speeches. Edited by Charles
wT~Boy3"^ 2 vols. New York, 1914.
Darwin, Charles. The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, 1809-
1882. Edited by Nora Barlow. New York, 1959.

104
 105

. The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to

Sex. New York [1936], originally published in 1871,
bound with The Origin of Species.

^ . The Origin of Spccies by Means of Natural Selec-

tion or the Proservation of Favored Races in the Strug-
gle of Life. Gtli ed. New York [1936], originally
published in 1859, bound with The Descent of Man.

More Letters of Charles Darwin, A Reccrd of His

Work in A Series of llitherto Unpublished Letters.
Edited by Francis Darwin. 2 vols. New York, 1903.

Froude, James Anthcny. Slicrt Studies on Great Subjects.

4 vols. London, 189 0.

Gladstone, William. "Aggression on Egypt and Freedoin in

the East." Nineteenth Century. II (187""), 149-166.

Great Britain. Parliament. Hansard's Parliamentary

Debates. 3rd and 4th series.

Hobhouse, L. T. Democracy and Reaction. New York, 1905.

Hobson, J. A. Imperialism, A Study. 3rd ed. Londcn, 1938.

Huxley, Thomas. Evolution and Ethics, and Other Essays.

New York, IQTTÍ

Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley. Edited

b7~Leonard Huxley. 2 vcls. New York, 1901.

"The Struggle for Existence; A Frogramrie."

Nmeteenth Century. XXIII (1S88) , 161-180.

Huxley, Thomas and Sully, James. "Evolution." Encyclopeûia

Britannica. 9th ed. Vol. vill.
Kidd, Benjamin. The Control of the Tropics. Lonãon, 1S?S:.

"Darwm's Successor 3t Home." Reviev rf F.e-

views. T:Í (:89U) , 1-47-650.
-'-,-•;-r\â'. j\-".-. .-;; and Free Trade." Nineteenth
' ].Vv {l^::-) r 32-54.
Centur;;'.
II \..r.r:roY 1-^?.? c: Colonial Preference." I^ineteenf.'-
:V (:904), 12-2 9.
Century.
 106
_^, "A National Policy." Fortnightly Review. XCIII
TT^IO), 602-614. ^

. Social Evolution. New York, 1894.

Malthus, Thoraas Robert. An Essay on the Principle of Popu-
lation, as it affect¥ the future iraprovement of Society,
with reraarks on the speculations of Mr. Godwin, Mr.
Condorcet, and other writers. New York, 1965, origi-
nally published in 1798.
Morley, John. Recollections. 2 vols. New York, 1917.
Pearson, Karl. National Life Frora the Standpoint of Science.
2nd ed. London, 1905. ""
"Socialism and National Selection." Fortnightly
Review. LVI (1894), 1-20.
Seeley, J. R. The Expansion of England, Two Courses of
Lectures. Boston, 1901.
Spencer, Herbert. An Autobiography. 2 vols. London, 1904.
. Facts and Comraents. New York, 1902.
. Life and Letters of Herbert Spencer. Edited by
David Duncan. 2 vols. New York, 1908.
. The Man Versus the State. Garden City, 1940,
originally published in 1884.
The Principles of Sociology. 2nd ed. 3 vois.
New York, 1898.
Social Statics; or, The Conditions Essential to
H râan Happiness Specified, and The First of Them De-
veloped^ 2nd ed. New York, 18 81.
Suer, W. D. Le. "Kidd on 'Social Evolution.'" Popular
Science Monthly. XLVIII (1895), 38-48.

The Tiraes (London).

Wallace, Alfred Russel. Alfred Russel Wallace; Letters and
Rerainiscences. Edited by Jaraes Marchant. New York,
1916.
 107
Studies, Scientific and Social. 2 vols. London,
1900.

"Why I Voted for Mr. Gladstone." Nineteenth

Century. XXXII (1892), 182-185.
^' The Wonderful Century, The Age of New Ideas in
Science and Invention. London, 1902.
Webb, Beatrice. My Apprenticeship. New York, 1926.
Margaret
Our I. Cole. Nêw York,
Partnership. 1948.
Edited by Barbara Drake and
Wells, H. G. Experiraent in Autobiography, Discoveries and
Conclusions of a Very Ordinary Brain (Since 1866).
New York, 1934. —

Secondary Sources
Allen, Grant. Charles Darwin; His Life and Work. New
York, [n.d.].
Barker, Ernest. Political Thought in England, 1848 to 1914.
2nd ed. New York, 1928.
Barzun, Jacques. Darwin, Marx, Wagner; Critique of a Heri-
tage. Garden City, 1958, originally published in 1941.
Bibby, Cyril. T. H. Huxley; Scientist, Huraanist, and Educa-
tor. New York, 1960.
Blacker, C. P. Eugenics: Galton and After. Carabridge,
Massachusetts, 1952.
Brinton, Crane. English Political Thought in the Nineteenth
Century. New York, 1962, originally published in 1933.
Bodelsen, C. A. Studies in Mid-Victorian Imperialism.
London, 1960, originally published in 1924.
Buckle, George Earle, and Monypenny, W. F. The Life of
Benjamin Disraeli, Earl of Beaconsfield. 6 vols.
New York, 1910-1920.
Bury, J. B. The Idea of Progress, An Inquiry into Its Origin
and Growth. London, 1920.
 108
Butler, J. R. M. "Imperial Questions in British Politics,
1868-1880." E. A. Benians, James Butler, C. E.
Carrington, eds. The Erapire-Commonwealth, 1870-1919.
Vol. III of The CarâFridge History of the British Erapire,
8 vols. in 9^ Carabridge, 1Ô29-59.
Cecil, Gwendolen. Life of Robert Marquis of Salisbury.
4 vols. London, 1922-1532".
Clark, Robert. Darwin: Before and After, An Evangelical
Assessraent. Chicago, 1967, originally published in
1966.

Coates, Wilson H. "Benthamisra, Laissez Faire and Collec-

tivisra." Journal of the History of Ideas. XI (1950),
357-363. •
Copleston, Frederick. A History of Philosophy. 8 vols.
Westrainister, Maryland, 1966.
Dunn, Waldo Hilary. Jaraes Anthony Froude, A Biography.
2 vols. Oxford, 1961-3.
Ellegard, Alvar. Darwin and the General Reader; The Recep-
tion of Darwin's Theory of Evolution in the British
Periodical Press, 1859-1872. Goteborg, 1958.
Ensor, R. C. K. England, 1870-1914. Oxford, 1936.
Eyck, Erich. Gladstone. Translated by Bernard Miall.
London, 1966, originally published in 1938.
Faber, Richard. The Vision and the Need; Late Victorian
Imperialist Airas. London, 1966.
Gallagher, John and Robinson, Ronald. "The Imperialism of
Free Trade." Econoraic History Review. VI (1953),
1-15.
Gallagher, John; Robinson, Ronald; and Denny, Alice. Africa
and the Victorians; The Cliraax of Iraperialism in the
Dark Continent^ New York, 1961.
Garvin, J. L. The Life of Joseph Chamberlain. 3 vols.
London, 1932-1934.
FT

109
George, Wilraa. Biologist Philosopher; A Study of the Life
and Writings of Alfred Russel Wallace. New York, 1964.
Grenville, J. A. S. Lord Salisbury and Foreign Policy.
London, 1964. "

Halévy, Eli. The Growth of Philosophical Radicalism.

Translated by Mary Morris. London, 1928.
Imperialism and the Rise of Labour. New York,
T9S1.
Haraer, D. A. John Morley, Liberal Intellect in Politics.
Oxford, 1968.
Hayes, Carlton J. H. A Generation of Materialism, 1871-
1900. New York, 1941.
Hearnshaw, Fossey John Cobb, ed. The Political Principles
of Sorae Notable Prime Ministers of the Nineteenth Cen-
tury. London, 1926.
Henkin, Leo J. Darwinism in the English Novel, 1860-1910;
The Impact 5 Evolution on Victorian Fiction. New
York, 1940.
Hiramelfarb, Gertrude. Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution.
Garden City, 1959.
Hinsley, R. H. "International Rivalry, 1885-1895." E. A.
Benians, James Butler, C. E. Carrington, eds. The
Empire-Commonwealth, 1870-1919. Vol. III of The
Cambridge History of the Brit sh Empire. 8 vols. in
T. Cambridge, 1929-59.
"Internationai Rivalry in the Colonial Sphere,
r86"9-1885." E. A. Benians, James Butler, C. E.
Carrington, eds. The Empire-Commonwealth, 1870-1919.
Vol. III of The Cambridge History of the British
Empire. 8 vols. in 9. Cambridge, 1929-59.
Hofstadter, Richard. Sccial Darwinism in American Thought.
2nd ed. :iew York, 19 59.
Houghton, Walter £. The \^ictorian Frame of Mind, 1830-1870
New Haven, 19 57.
 110
Irvine, William.
^- Apes, Angels, and Victorians; The Story
of Darwin , Huxley, and Evolution. New York, 1955.

• Thoraas Henry Huxley. London, 1960.

Keith, Arthur. Darwin Revalued. London, 1955.
Knaplund, Paul. The British Empire, 1815-1939. New York,
1941. — ~

Gladstone and Britain's Iraperial Policy. Hamden,

Connecticut, 1966, originally published in 1927.
Gladstone's Foreign Policy. Haraden, Connecticut,
1970, originally published in 1935.
Lugard, F. D. The Rise of Our East African Empire; Early
Efforts in Nyasaland and Uganda. 2 vols. London,
1893. ^
MacDonagh, Oliver. "The Anti-Imperialism of Free Trade."
Econoraic History Review. XIV (1962), 489-501.
McDowell, R. B. British Conservatism, 1832-1914. London,
1959.
MacKintosh, Robert. From Corate to Benjarain Kidd, The Appeal
to Biology or Evolution for Huraan Guidance. London,
1899.
Madden, A. F. "Changing Attitudes and Widening Responsi-
bilities, 1895-1914." E. A. Benians, James Butler,
C. A. Carrington, eds. The Erapire-Coramonwealth, 1870-
1919. Vol. III of The Carabridge History of the British
Erapire. 8 vols. in"~9"! Carabridge, 1929-1959.
Magnus, Philip. Gladstone, A Biography. New York, 1954.
Morley, John. The Life of Williara Ewart Gladstone. 3 vols.
London, 1903.
Pearson, E. S. Karl Pearson, An Appreciation of Some Aspects
of His Life and Work. Cambridge, 1938. ~
Robinson, R. E. "Imperial Probleras in British Politics,
1880-1895." E. A. Benians, Jaraes Butler, C. E. Carring-
ton, eds. The Erapire-Coraraonwealth, 1870-1919. Vol.
III of The Cambridge History of the British 1'mpire. 8
vols. in 9. Carabridge, 1929-59.
 111
Runney, Jay. Herbert Spencer's Sociology. New York, 1965,
originally published in Í937.

Schuyler, R. L. "The Cliraax of Anti-Iraperialisra in England."

Political Science Quarterly, XXXVI (1921), 537-560.
Seramel, Bernard. Imperialism and Social Reform; English
Social-Imperiai Thought, 1895-1915. Cambridge, 1960.
Seward, A. C., ed. Darwin and Modern Science; Essays in
Coraraeraorate of the Centenary of the Birth of Charles
Dãrwin and of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Publica-
tion of The Origin of Species. Cambridge, 1909.
Shannon, R. T. Gladstone and the Bulgarian Agitation.
London, 1963.
Somervell, D. C. Disraeii and Gladstone: A Duo-Biographical
Sketch. New York, 1926.
English Thought in the Nineteenth Century. 2nd ed,
London, 1929.
Strauss, Williara L. Joseph Charaberlain and the Theory of
Iraperialisra. Washington, D.C., 1942.
Sturgis, Jaraes L. John Bright and the Empire. London, 1969
Thomson, David. England in the Nineteenth Century, 1815-
1914. Baltiraore, 1950.
"Social and Political Thought." T. H. Hinsley,
ed. Material Progress and World Wide Problems, 1870-
1898. Vol. XI of The New Cambridge Modern History.
Carabridge, 1962, pp. 101-120.
Thornton, A. P. The Iraperial Idea and Its Eneraies, A Study
in British Power. New York, 1959.