But it was in 1872 that Disraeli first propounded a colonial policy which was the sum of many previous pronouncements, and is even now being pondered, and not by one party alone. He recognised that a united empire implies a united nation; that, as he always maintained, Parliament represents national opinion, and that colonial opinion and sentiment at last formed part of it. “Gentlemen,” urged Disraeli, “there is another and second great object of the Tory party. If the first is to maintain the institutions of the country, the second is, in my opinion, to uphold the empire of England. If you look to the history of this country since the advent of Liberalism--forty years ago--you will find that there has been no effort, so continuous, so subtle, supported by so much energy, and carried on with so much ability and acumen, as the attempts of Liberalism _to effect the disintegration of the empire of England_. Statesmen of the highest character, writers of the most distinguished ability, the most organised and efficient means have been employed in this endeavour. It has been proved to all of us that we have lost money by our colonies.” Alluding next to the “incubus” in the passage I have already cited, he thus frankly continues: ... “Well, that result was nearly accomplished when these subtle views were adopted by the country, under the plausible plea of granting self-government to the colonies. I confess that I myself thought that the tie was broken. Not that I, for one, object to self-government. I cannot conceive how our distant colonies can have their affairs administered except by self-government. But self-government, in my opinion, ought to have been conceded, _as part of a great policy of imperial consolidation. It ought to have been accompanied by an imperial tariff, by securities for the people of England for the enjoyment of the unappropriated 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,[118] and by which, if necessary, the country should call for aid from the colonies themselves._ It ought further to have been accompanied _by the institution of some representative council in the metropolis, which would have brought the colonies into constant and continuous relations with the home Government_. All this, however, was omitted because those who advised that policy--and I believe their convictions were sincere--looked upon the colonies of England, looked even upon our connection with India, as a burden upon this country, _viewing everything in a financial aspect, and totally passing by those moral and political considerations which make nations great, and by the influence of which alone men are distinguished from animals_.”