of civil society over all the conquered territory, until
often the subject populations were glad they had come under the
all-dominant sway of Rome, since their situation was so much more
peaceful and happy than before. Such justification, however, is after
the fact: it is not moral justification of the building of the empire.
That represented a succession of claim-jumpings.

For an illustration from more modern history, take the greatest
international crime of the last five hundred years, with one exception--
the partition of Poland. It is true the Polish nobles were a nuisance to
their neighbors, ever quarreling among themselves, with no central
authority powerful enough to restrain them, but that did not justify the
action taken. Three nations, or rather the autocratic sovereigns of
those nations, powerful enough to accomplish the crime, agreed to
partition Poland among themselves. They did it, with the result that
there are plenty of Poles in the world to-day, but there is no Poland.

Consider the possession of Silesia by Prussia. Silesia was an integral
part of the Austrian domain, long so recognized. Friedrich the Great
wanted it. He annexed it. The deed caused him many years of recurring,
devastating wars; again and again he was near the point of utter defeat;
but he succeeded in bringing the war to a successful conclusion, and
Silesia is part of Prussia to-day. The strong arm conquest is the only
reason.

So is it with Germany's possession of Schleswig-Holstein, with Austria
in Herzegovina and Bosnia, France in Algiers, Italy in Tripoli: they are
all instances of claim-jumping, reprehensible in varying degrees.

I suppose no thoughtful Englishman would attempt to justify, on high
moral grounds, the building up of the British empire: for instance, the
possession of Egypt and India by Britain. How does India happen to be a
part of the British realm? Every one knows the answer. The East India
Company was simply the most adventurous and enterprising trading company
then in the world. It grew rich trading with the Orient, established
the supremacy of the British merchant marine, got into difficulties with
French rivals and native rulers, fought brilliantly for its rights, as
it had every reason to do, conquered territory and consolidated its
possessions, ruling chiefly through native princes. It became so
powerful that it did not seem wise to the British government to permit a
private corporation to exe