ON POLITICAL BOUNDARIES. 243 



means. I grant that this is not a high ideal, but wliat else can we 

 suggest? We have had bitter experience of late years which should 

 teach us again an old, old lesson of the value of high ideals and 

 altruistic sentiment where men's passions are concerned in this un- 

 redeemed world so full of beauty and of desperate evil ; and we must 

 reluctantly admit that the best way to preserve peace amongst the 

 nations is to part them by as strong and as definite a physical fence 

 as we can find. In short, a boundary must be a barrier, and the 

 position of it must be influenced largely by the will of the people. 

 These, then, are the two governing conditions of boundaiy making. 

 Let us consider the latter condition fii'st. All authorities seem to agree 

 (there are not many of them) that the annexation of any territory 

 directly against the will of its inhabitants is a political blunder. The 

 assimilation of its people with the conquering nation is a slow, and 

 often an impossible process. The Germans have not assimilated the 

 French of Alsace and Lorraine, the English have hardly assimilated 

 the Irish, and where race antagonism is believed to be supported by 

 self-interest real assimilation seems to be hopeless. An admixture, 

 so to speak, may be effected mechanically, but real chemical fusion 

 never takes place. Under such circumstances it is seldom indeed that 

 the acquired territory is a safe and thoroughly sound unit in the political 

 entity. It adds little or nothing to the strength of a nation, althougli 

 it may be economically useful, and it is apt to be a very thorn in the 

 side of any Government and an undoubted danger in times of stress 

 and adversity. The expression of the peoples' will varies infinitely in 

 forni. In the savage and uncivilised countries of the black man tlaere 

 may be no possibility of consulting it. The questions at issue may lie 

 between whole nations, and the black man has little to say to the 

 disposition of his own property. But amongst civilised countries there 

 is always a ' will,' and it is usually exceedingly definite. Various sug- 

 gestions have been made as to the best way of ascertaining that will. A 

 plebiscite even has been suggested. I cannot imagine a surer way of 

 starting an armed conflict. The process of vote-catching is never one 

 which lends itself to the promotion of good feeling and brotherly love 

 at the best of times, even when the object is a political issue only half 

 comprehended. When it is a matter of close personal interest involving 

 a clear issue of local gain or loss it certainly would stir up to its very 

 depths the identical dispute which the boundary is planned to decide. 

 Nor in practice will it be found that any such resource is necessary. 

 However complicated may be the admixture of those sentiments which 

 together combine to form a definite will on the part of the disputants, 

 the expression of a people's will in tenns of the majority is usually 

 definite and unmistakable. W^hen opinions are fairly divided and the 

 expression of them is weak and wobbly, inclining first one way and then 

 another, weighing advantages against disadvantages, and coming to no 

 decided conclusion, then indeed sentiment may well be allowed to give 

 way to those physical conditions which should govern the selection of 

 the line of partition, strong geographically, a barrier for defence against 

 aggression, an age-long guarantee for the peaceful development of 

 culture and ccmmerce without interference or fear on either side. Let 



