§ 3. The question of free immigration has occupied a much smaller place in modern political discussion than the question of free trade: still, freedom of immigration is a recognised feature of the ideal which orthodox political economists have commonly formed of international relations. And it seems, as I have pointed out, to be implicitly assumed in the most general economic argument for free trade; since, in order that the advantages of complete freedom of exchange among nations may be fully realised, it is necessary that labour should move with perfect ease from country to country to meet the changes that are continually likely to occur in the industrial demand for it. On the other hand, we have seen that the system of international rights, formed in the earlier period of modern European history on the principle of mutual non-interference, allows each state complete freedom in determining the positive relations into which it will enter with states and individuals outside it; and though theoretically I cannot concede to a state possessing large tracts of unoccupied land an absolute right of excluding alien elements, I have not proposed any limitation of this right in the case of civilised countries generally. The truth is, that when we consider how far the exercise of this right of exclusion is conducive to the real interest of the state exercising it, or of humanity at large, we come upon the most striking phase of the general conflict between the cosmopolitan and the national ideals of political organisation, which has more than once attracted our notice. According to the national ideal, the right and duty of each government is to promote the interests of a determinate group of human beings, bound together by the tie of a common nationality-with due regard to the rules restraining it from attacking or encroaching on other states—and to consider the expediency of admitting foreigners and their products solely from this point of view. According to the cosmopolitan ideal, its business is to maintain order over the particular territory that historical causes have appropriated to it, but not in any way to determine who is to inhabit

1 Chap. xv.

this territory, or to restrict the enjoyment of its natural advantages to any particular portion of the human race.

The latter is perhaps the ideal of the future; but at present I must discard it as allowing too little for the national and patriotic sentiments which have in any case to be reckoned with as an actually powerful political force, and which I regard as, for several reasons, at present indispensable to social well-being. In the first place, we cannot yet hope to substitute for these sentiments, in sufficient diffusion and intensity, the wider sentiment connected with the conception of our common humanity; so that the casual aggregates that might result from perfectly unrestrained emigration would lack internal cohesion. Secondly, even supposing that the fellow-feeling now uniting members of the same nation were everywhere expanded to embrace humanity, we could not secure that efforts to raise the standard of living among the poorer classes should be made equally everywhere, and therefore to allow unrestricted emigration might defeat such efforts in any one country without correspondingly benefiting the region from which they came. Again, the governmental function of promoting moral and intellectual culture might be rendered hopelessly difficult by the continual inflowing streams of alien immigrants, with diverse moral habits and religious traditions. Similarly, the efficient working of the political institutions of different states presupposes certain characteristics in the human beings to whom they are applied; and a large intermixture of immigrants brought up under different institutions might inevitably introduce corruption and disorder into a previously wellordered state.

I think, therefore, that it would not be really in the interest of humanity to impose upon civilised states generally, as an international duty, the free admission of immigrants; and that it would be a proper policy for any such state to place restrictions on immigration if ever it should threaten to take such dimensions as to interfere materially with the internal cohesion of a nation, or with the efforts of government to maintain an adequately high standard of life among

the members of the community generally—especially the poorer classes. Apart from these mischievous consequences, the free admission of aliens will generally be advantageous to the country admitting them; partly for reasons similar to those that render free trade generally expedient, as the recipient state is thus enabled to share the advantage of the special faculties and empirical arts in which other countries excel; partly as tending to the diffusion of mutual knowledge and sympathy among nations. Further, as I shall presently point out, over a large part of the earth's surface the union of diverse races under a common government seems to be an almost indispensable condition of economic progress and the spread of civilisation; in spite of the political and social difficulties and drawbacks that this combination entails.

II. § 4. Among civilised states a continual interchange of population goes on to a slight extent, which will be called. immigration or emigration according to the point of view from which it is regarded. As between old fully-peopled states like those of Western Europe and civilised states like the American, with a large amount of unoccupied land, the transfer of population tends to be more extensive and onesided; the old states even when they are growing in numbers and wealth-send to the newer countries a considerable excess of both over what they receive. When, however, emigration takes place from civilised states into regions inhabited by savage tribes-whose political organisation would hardly be held to justify the name of "states" —it is in modern times normally combined with extension of the territory of the State from which it takes place, and may be regarded as a process of Expansion of the community as a whole. Whether, and in what manner, it is desirable that this expansion should take place is the last of the chief questions of external policy which I reserved for the present chapter.

First, it is to be observed that the extension of the territory of states through conquest is almost always accompanied by some immigration of the old members of the

state into the new territory. But where the territory was already fully peopled by human beings the immigration is not likely to be considerable, unless the war has been unusually destructive, since there would be no room for the immigrants without such a violent invasion of the private rights of the old inhabitants as would excite strong resistance and general odium. Hence the enlargement of a state through conquest of this kind is hardly to be called expansion; and the larger whole that results from it is not, for some time at least, organic, being composed of parts not united by a common national sentiment. Where the conquerors and conquered are approximately equal in civilisation this result is likely to continue for an indefinite period; and, as the government of the conquerors is not likely to confer benefits on the conquered sufficient to compensate for the drawbacks of alien rule, such conquest seems to be generally, under ordinary circumstances, rightly disapproved by the morality of modern civilised nations.

The case is different when the conquered, though not uncivilised, are markedly inferior in civilisation to the conquerors. Here, if the war that led to the conquest can be justified by obstinate violation of international duty on the part of the conquered, the result would generally be regarded with toleration by impartial persons; and even, perhaps, with approval, if the government of the conquerors was shown by experience to be not designedly oppressive or unjust; since the benefits of completer internal peace and order, improved industry, enlarged opportunities of learning a better religion and a truer science, would be taken—and, on the whole, I think rightly taken-to compensate for the probable sacrifice of the interests of the conquered to those of the conquerors, whenever the two came into collision.

Whether such conquest is in the interest of the conquering nation-apart from the need of repressing and punishing a turbulent neighbour, which has often been the preponderant motive to wars that have terminated in conquests-is a question to which it is difficult to give a general answer. Both the disadvantages and the advantages vary much in

different cases. The disadvantages are (1) the bloodshed and cost of the fighting necessary to win and keep the conquest; (2) the increased difficulty of self-defence due to the diminished cohesion of the enlarged state; and (3) the stronger temptation that dominion based on conquest offers to the aggression of powerful neighbours. The chief material advantages aimed at in conquest are (1) the increase of strength for war,-due mainly to the mere increase in size and total resources, enabling the state to maintain larger armaments and (2) increase of wealth for the conquering community. The former advantage may easily be more than outweighed by increased difficulty of defence if the conquest is distant or otherwise inconveniently situated,-e.g., England is rather weakened than strengthened for formidable conflicts by her possession of India. The prospect, again, of increase of wealth varies very much in different cases: and it is to be observed that in modern times such gain is rarely even expected in the form of tribute to the public treasury, since it is recognised that such taxation as is possible without oppression can rarely even meet the expense entailed by the acquisition and maintenance-as well as the internal government of the conquered country. Still substantial gains are likely to accrue to the conquering community regarded as an aggregate of individuals, through the enlarged opportunities for the private employment of capital, the salaries earned in governmental service, and especially, in the case of a commercial community, through the extended markets opened to trade. The importance of this last consideration is obviously much increased by the general adoption of the protectionist policy which at present finds favour with the majority of civilised states; but it would not be without importance even under a system of universal free trade; since the superior civilisation that the conquerors are supposed to introduce will tend to spread to some extent their special tastes in consumption, and a consequent preference for the products of the dominant community.

Besides these material advantages, there are legitimate sentimental satisfactions, derived from justifiable conquests,