On July 7th, 1898, Dr. Charles Waldstein gave a Lecture at the Imperial Institute on "The Englishspeaking Brotherhood." Lord Rosebery was in the chair, and this Address is his after-lecture commentary. The lecturer pleaded for “English-speaking" as against " Anglo-Saxon," urging that the unsound ideas respecting our racial origin involved in the expression " Anglo-Saxon" would do more harm than good to the cause of a better understanding between Great Britain and the United States. But it will be noticed that "Anglo-Saxon” found in Lord Rosebery, if not a supporter, at least an apologist.

THE ENGLISH-SPEAKING

BROTHERHOOD

I AM sure I am only expressing your views when I tender, on your behalf, our thanks to Professor Waldstein for the extremely interesting address he has delivered to us this afternoon. He has set forth with a fulness and eloquence, and a learning which leaves nothing to be desired, his views on a question which is, perhaps, of the most vital interest to the English-speaking brotherhood-to use his own expression-of any that can lie before them. And, although I may not agree in detail with all his views and with all that he has laid down, and it would, perhaps, be impossible for any two human beings to agree to so many propositions as he has laid down. in the course of his speech, I think we may

come to the general conclusion with him that, under whatever name we may choose to call it, or whatever form it may assume, the good understanding, the more cordial the better, between the--I hardly know what to call it, for I may not use the word Anglo-Saxon— the British and American races is one fraught with benefit to the best destinies of mankind.

But I must warn you against a pitfall that lurks even in that expression. It is thisthat, putting aside the conscientious Russian, whom the Professor summoned to give testimony, I am afraid all the other great nations. of the world are under the same impression as to the spread of their power and their empire. I doubt if the Germans or the French, for example, and I make bold to say even the Russians, though they have been quoted against the argument by the lecturer, would be disposed to say that the extension of their several empires was not in the best interests of the human race. That is a feeling common to all nationalities, and we can only hope that we indulge in it with more

reason and on a broader basis than do the others I have mentioned.

Our lecturer took exception to the term Anglo-Saxon, and he took exception very justly to that term as not being truly a scientific description of our race. But I think he would agree with me in saying that the same objections would lie against a generic description of almost any other race in the worldthat there is hardly a race in the world inhabiting its own territory-I cannot recall one at this moment-which can be strictly called a race, if all the objections which lie against the term Anglo-Saxon lie against the adjective which may be applied to that race. I do not plead for the word Anglo-Saxon. I would welcome any other term than AngloSaxon which in a more conciliatory, a more scientific, and more adequate manner would describe the thing I want to describe. But whether you call it British or Anglo-Saxon, or whatever you call it, the fact is that the race is there and the sympathy of the race is there. How you arrive at that sympathy, whether it be purely by language, or as, per

haps, I think more truly, by the moral, intellectual, and political influences under which a nationality has grown up-how you arrive at that sympathy, it is foreign to my purpose to discuss to-day. But this at least we may say, that when a nation has inhabited certain boundaries without disturbance for a considerable number of centuries, even though it has received accessions from foreign nations, and when it has fused those accessions from foreign nations into its own nationality, and made them accept the name and language and laws and the facts of that nationality, it seems to me that for all practical purposes you have a nation and a race.

Is not that the case with ourselves and the United States? Up to July 4, 1776, we lived under the same Constitution, with the little divergences which Great Britain permits to her external dependencies all over the world. Then came the great crash of July 4 and the treaty of 1783. I suspect that to those who lived in those days it appeared that the sun of England had set. It was so expressed by her greatest statesman.

It was felt to be a