H
I LLINO I S
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN

PRODUCTION NOTE
University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign Library
Brittle Books Project, 2012.

COPYRIGHT NOTIFICATION
In Public Domain.
Published prior to 1923.

This digital copy was made from the printed version held
by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
It was made in compliance with copyright law.
Prepared for the Brittle Books Project, Main Library,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
by
Northern Micrographics
Brookhaven Bindery
La Crosse, Wisconsin
2012

Phe

Boer War

And Other Papers

Kindred Topics
By

ANDREW GRAY, D. D.

(Republished

By Request.)

Mattoon, Illinois.
1902.

Vih

ComplImeis of
/?o.

.andre

ray

.

THE WAR IN SOUTH AFRICA
ITS CAUSES, ETC.
By ANDREW GRAY, D.D.
From the American Citizen, Boston, Mass., February 10, 1900.
The war in South Africa is due to the deliberate determination of
the Boers to continue their course of misgovernment and injustice. The
Boers owe their right of self-government to English forbearance. Upon
the British government rests the responsibility for the proper government of South Africa with its mixed millions of blacks and whites. A
limited share of that responsibility having been delegated to the Boers,
the British are bound to see that it is properly discharged. The criticisms leveled at the government of Great Britain are wide of the mark.
The whole of the franchise difficulty with which the late negotiations
closed, grew out of the bad faith of the Transvaal government. When in
1881 a vote of censure was proposed upon the government of Mr. Gladstone for making the convention of that year (by which the Transvaal regained its internal independence), a part of the official defence was that
the convention had secured full burgher rights to all emigrants into the
Transvaal, except the right to vote, and the franchise law then in force
(two years) was as liberal as that of any other civilized state. But in
1890 President Kruger withdrew those rights, and made them henceforth
unattainable.
In answer to this we are told that the Transvaal government repented
of this withdrawal of rights, and offered a five years' franchise last summer, and that the offer ought to have been accepted. It was offered, but
with a condition; and accepted, subject to an inquiry.
The necessity for that inquiry is shown by the opinion of Mr. Robson, a stalwart Radical, a Queen's counsel, and a distinguished authority
on constitutional law. He declared that the franchise proposed was a
"grotesque and palpable sham"-an opinion supported by no less a person than President Kruger himself, who told his friends (see Times correspondence, Oct. and Nov., 1899) that the franchise was to be given
only to those "who could be trusted," and that he had no intention of
giving a "general franchise."
When that franchise offer was accepted,
minus its condition, it was immediately withdrawn.

p1 0 5 9

We are gravely told by Boer sympathizers that that condition was a
most reasonable one-that all the Boers claimed was "that their independence should not be interfered with." This is a mistake. They made
a totally different claim, namely, that England would guarantee not to
interfere in their internal affairs.
No state could possibly give such a guarantee to another state. It
becomes, not the right only, but the duty of every state to interfere on
behalf of its subjects who are suffering injustice or oppression in another
state. On grounds of humanity one state has often interfered even when
its own subjects were not directly concerned. The United States interfered with England in the matter of Venezuela, and also made war on
Spain because of oppressed Cuba. To give such a guarantee to any
state on earth, would be an absurdity, for no state would consider itself
bound by it.
There has been a good deal of gush and sentiment exhibited on behalf of the Boers by certain classes in this country of late. Generous
feelings, sympathy with the weaker side, a tendency to minimize the
claims of a powerful nation, all these have their use and worth. But
then, sentiment, to escape being ridiculous, must be founded upon logic
and buttressed by accurate information. No mere force of assertion will
supply the lack of these essentials; and the extraordinary ineffectiveness
of the purely sentimental criticism of England in this war, is due, in
many cases, to abysmal ignorance of the true facts of the case. No
criticism can succeed in making much impression unless it is prepared to
give its authorities and offer proof.
The Boston Herald has said editorially, "It is obvious that the sympathy for the Boers in their struggle against the English, recently expressed
at official and unofficial meetings in this city, is controlled much more
largely by traditional hatred of England, than by special admiration for the
cause which the citizens of the Transvaal are now defending. The
country which the advocates and supporters of these resolutions have in
:mind is not the Transvaal, but Ireland, and the war in South Africa is
,used simply as a club to beat those who are looked upon as old oppressors." This is well understood by intelligent people.
The criticisms of a certain class of the Irish are taken for granted.
It is not to their credit that when they emigrate to this country they do
not leave their foreign quarrels behind them. But no, they are ready
everywhere to show their ancient prejudice against Great Britain. And
that is what the City Council resolutions and the Faneuil Hall meeting
mean. I say a certain class of the Irish-they hardly ever agree with
anybody, and not always even with themselves, but they are ready to avail
themselves of every opportunity of showing their envenomed hatred and
undying hostility to England. All loyal Americans should rebuke this

importation of Irish animosity into America, where all ought to live together in peace and harmony.
But there is a class of persons more to be despised than these. I
mean those who wish to make political capital out of the war-the truckling demagogues and unprincipled .politicians, who are ever ready to pander
to this strife, hatred and ill-will, for the ballots they expect in return.
Such persons merit the contempt of all true Americans, Whether Republicans or Democrats they are a disgrace to their party, and should be
shunned, for they are unworthy of confidence-sychophants and timeservers.
But the war has brought out in a wonderful manner the great loyalty
of the people throughout the British Empire. As soon as the Boer challenge (commonly called the ultimatum) was insolently flung in- the faces
of the English ministers, all political parties in England, with the exception of a few cranks, agreed to keep their peculiar political and party
opinions in the background for the present, and were resolved to stand
shoulder to shoulder in the fight, and were united in asserting that the
British nation had no other honorable course open to it, but to take up the
challenge that had been thrown down. They, like honorable and patriotic men, placed their country above their party. All parties still have
and hold their own political opinions, but in the face of a common enemy,
who challenged them to fight, and who in fact made the war inevitable
by invading the British province of Natal, a spirit of union seized them
all, and, as Macaulay says, "None was for his party, but all were for the
state."
The whole empire is now united, as it ought to be, in repelling a
proud and insolent invader of British territory. The country seems
unanimous, and even the persons whose voices are usually loudest in
criticism of the government, are comparatively silent. Among the leaders of the radicals, all the men of most influence and most intelligence
have taken a strong line in favor of the war. There is practically no opposition press. The two London papers-the Daily Chronicle and the
Echo-which at the beginning opposed the war, have by the logic of
facts, been driven to a change of policy.
For the appeal to force, be it remembered, was not made by
England. At the last moment the issue of peace or war was taken out of
her hands. By addressing to the English government an ultimatum
carefully drawn so as to make a favorable reply impossible, by forcibly
invading British territory and plundering British subjects, the Transvaal
and Free State Boers deliberately put an end to all diplomacy, and left
no alternative but to embark in a conflict which every intelligent man
must see involves the stability of the empire itself.
It is no longer a question of diplomatic differences between England
and the Transvaal; the wrongs of the Uitlanders, the integrity of con-

4
ventions and treaties, the question of suzereignty, et id genus omne,-all
these remain, but they almost fade out of sight when compared with the
greater issue, that of driving off invaders from British territory and
rendering them henceforth powerless for harm.
The war was inevitable, and it is doubtful whether good and settled
government and equal rights between men of all races and colors in South
Africa could have been attained without it. The ultimate achievement
of a cause so excellent, however arduous, and no matter at what cost, is
the bright side of the gloomy shadow now cast upon England by the war.
Opposers of England say that the differences might have been settled without war. I think so, too. But they lose sight of the fact that
the Boers made the war inevitable by the terms of their ultimatum, and
then began the fight by invading Natal. The terms of that ultimatum
-are convincing proof that the Boers were determined to fight all along,
unless England would give way unreservedly. There was no necessity
for an ultimatum, and if there had been it might have been put in terms
that would not absolutely close the door to further consideration.
It is admitted that the Boer ultimatum in the terms in which it was
delivered, had been decided upon some weeks in advance by the two
Dutch States; and it is sufficient to say of it that the most pronounced
political opponents of,the government have agreed with the unanimous
utterance of the foreign powers, that a government which tolerated it
would forfeit all claims to respect. Seeing that the men who drafted
that ultimatum must have known that it would precipitate England into
war, what utter nonsense it is to talk about England attacking the Boers.
Do people forget that by that ultimatum the British government was
called upon to remove its military forces from its own territory in South
Africa, by the government of the Transvaal,- which owes its very existence
to the clemency of a former prime minister?
Before denouncing England, a man ought to make himself familiar
with the franchise history in the Transvaal previous to 1890, and with
the franchise regulations and restrictions since; he ought to know of the
memorial of 1894, of the petition of 1898, of the admissions made by Sir
Jacobus de Wet, of the correspondence with Lord Loch, not to add Sir
Alfred Milner. He ought to be aware that the grievances of the Uitlanders have been acknowledged to be substantial by a Radical and a Unionist British government, and that they have not been denied by even the
government of the Transvaal.
But I am asked, why did the Uitlanders go to the Transvaal, or why
do they remain there if they do not like the laws? I reply, they were
invited to go; inducements were held out to them, rights were promised
them. Are people ignorant of the fact that the convention of 1881 gave
the Uitlanders a right to live in the Transvaal, and stipulated that they
should have full burgher rights, as I have said above ? For this I refer

5
to the official defence made on behalf of Mr. Gladstone's government in
both houses of parliament of that year.
It is charged again that the Boers suspected the Uitlanders and also
A man who can
England of having designs on their independence.
think that, with the solemn-disclaimers of almost every statesman of
England ringing in his ears, is beyond argument. He is not ashamed to
think and to insinuate that England's greatest public men of all parties,
are liars, robbers and hypocrites of the most offensive kind. To those
who so think aud insinuate might be applied the French motto, "Evil be
to him who evil thinks."
It would be much easier to prove that there was a pretty evident
aim, in opposition to the conventions under which the Transvaal was
made a quasi-independent State, ultimately to establish Dutch supremacy
in South Africa. But I shall not enter into this at present.
The war has afforded overwhelming evidence that the national life
of England is still full and rich in reserve force. Not only the distinguished bravery and endurance of the regular army, but also the readiness with which the whole nation has sprung to the call to arms, proves
that the best and highest national qualities are unimpaired, and that
England has not yet reached her zenith. Through all classes of society
still runs that indomitable spirit which has made her history what it is.
And along with that goes the pleasant testimony of her solidarity. The
young men from the Colonies have hurried to take their places beside the
English troops, and have done their duty with a steadiness, pluck, and
skill, that have never been surpassed. Thousands of colonists are eagerly
waiting to be called on to join their comrades at the front. The extent
to which the colonies have proffered their aid has been without any precedent in England's history. To know that the bond which unites the
different portions of the empire is thus increasing in strength and efficacy
is certainly a consolation to the government at a time like this.
I might submit, that resolutions of sympathy for the Boers, and protests against England, come with rather bad grace from those who call
themselves American citizens, while the government of the United States
is engaged in a war to force the Filipinos into subjection. The Filipinos
have not been oppressing American subjects, and compelling them to pay
enormous taxes, while denying to them representation. I must not be
understood as taking ground against the administration in this matter.
I do not. But I say there seems to be an inconsistency here; but it only
serves to strengthen and confirm my contention, viz., that the country the
remonstrants and protestants are thinking of is Ireland, and not the
-Transvaal.
Let me, before I close, call your attention to a few points which appear to be overlooked:1. The Transvaal is not and never was a sovereign and independent

nation. It has independent government in internal affairs, but is under
the suzerainty of Great Britain.
2. Its form of govermment is called a republic, but it is not a republic in any sense of that word that Americans would acknowledge. It is,
in fact, an oligarchy, and so, is far removed from republicanism.
3. A great principle, which was fought out and settled for Americans for all time, in the war of 1776, was that "Taxation without repreThe English people have
sentation is a tyranny not to be endured."
learned that lessson too, probably from America. And now thousands of
British subjects, for several years residents in the Transvaal, are groaning
under the burden of oppressive taxation, while denied representation.
Twenty-one thousand of them, as a last resort, have petitioned the Queen
for relief from their grievances. Naturally every American citizen, true
to American principles, will sympathize with them in such a contention.
4. Again, the United States contended, in the war of 1812, that a
subject of the United States was entitled to the protection of his government, wherever he might be. History repeats itself. The twenty-one
thousand Uitlanders, above referred to, claim the protection of the British
government, more especially as Great Britain has suzerainty over the
Transvaal. England, having learned this lesson also, no doubt from America, upholds them in their claim. Of course all true and loyal Americans
will sympathize with England and the Uitlanders here also, and that on
a settled and well-established American principle.
It is said that Great Britain refused arbitration, and insisted that the
dispute must be settled between her and the Transvaal without alien
intervention. And this is used against her. Would the United States
have accepted alien intervention in 1861? Or would this country have
submitted the settlement of its dispute with Mexico to the arbitration of
a European power ? To ask the question, is to answer it.
Nor will it escape notice that there is a similarity between the Boers,
courting war with Great Britain, and the Spanish course toward the
United States. The Boers say that England forced the war upon them,
though they had been preparing for it for years. So the Spaniards
complained of the United States. This country can scarcely admit the
Boer complaint to be well-founded, without equally admitting that of
Spain. In fact, then, Great Britain is acting precisely as the United
States would act if in her place; precisely as this country would have to
act if it did not wish to repudiate its own principles and its own record.
That is the great, salient fundamental fact which will and does determine
t
he direction in which the overwhelming mass of sympathy from the
intelligent and loyal Americans will be given.

SOUTH AFRICAN WAR.
Pro-Boer Meetings and American Sympathy.
By ANDREW GRAY, D. D.
From The Mattoon Commercial, Jan. 2, 1902.
To THE EDITOR:-The outcome of the war in South Africa is not very
likely to be influenced, in any material degree by the holding of public
meetings in this country; and American sentiment (if, creating and
directing that is the purpose of such gatherings), can only be aroused
when it is made evident that the reason for holding the meetings is really
sympathy with the Boers, and not hostility to England. To show how
strongly this feeling of hostility to England colors most of these assemblies, it is only necessary to point out that, in almost all of them, there is
an irresistible tendency to change the subject for discussion fron South
Africa to Ireland. There may have been pro-Boer meetings held' in this
country, in which Ireland was not referred to, but I have not seen reports,
of such gatherings; while in many reports which I have seen the supposed or real grievances of the Transvaal played, so to speak, second
fiddle to "the wrongs of Ireland."
I am not now discussing pro or con, the question whether Ireland
-has or has not just cause of complaint against the British government,
but it seems to me that, if the sympathy of the great American people,
in any broad and general way, is expected for the Boers, in the form of
resolution or otherwise, that the conditions and the causes of the contest
should be more clearly and impartially stated than they usually have
been at pro-Boer meetings.
I have read reports of large and enthusiastic meetings held in
Chicago and elsewhere, at which England was bitterly denounced for
prolonging a "cruel" war in South Africa-who ever heard of a war that
was not "cruel ?"-and Mr. Kruger and the Boers were praised! for the
resistance which they had made to what was called the arbitrary action
of Great Britain. It would be pertinent to inquire in passing, whether
it was England or the Boers who began the war? Whether England
made an attack on the so-called Transvaal Republic, or whether the,
Boers, on the 11th Oct. 1899, began hostilities by invading with an armed
force the British province of Natal?
But in the reports of the eloquent speeches made at these meetings,

I have not seen any allusion made to the action of the United States
government, in forcibly asserting what it believed to be its prerogative
in subduing and conquering the Philippine Islands and their inhabitants
-a people against whom we had no grievance or quarrel whatever. Nor
have I seen a word of praise for Aguinaldo for the defense which he and
his followers made for what they regarded as the political rights of them.
selves and their countrymen. Be it distinctly understood, I am not taking ground against the administration in this matter; but I do say that
resolutions of sympathy for the Boers, and protests against England,
come with rather a bad grace from those who call themselves American
citizens at such a time and under such circumstances. Surely there is an
inconsistency about it.
If public meetings of sympathy with the Filipinos and their cause,
were held in various cities of Great Britain and her colonies; if the
English city councils were to pass resolutions endorsing the cause of the
Filipinos, and praising them for their struggle to secure independeace
most Americans would think that such actions constituted an unwarrantable interference in our affairs.
I saw, in one of our papers, a report of a certain minister, who, on
Sunday last at the close of his sermon, "offered for signature a petition
to the principals in the South African war, imploring them to settle their
differences by arbitration." The report says, "Nearly every man, woman
and child in the house signed the petition." The petition would be
likely to have quite as much weight with the "principals" if the names of
the "children" had been omitted. But presumably he acted on the supposition that every name counts. Is it any wonder that petitions, in
scores of cases, are relegated to the waste paper basket, when it is known
how many of the signatures are secured; and when it is also well
understood that many of the children who sign them, or whose names are
signed to them by others, know just nothing about the merits or demerits
of the case ?
I would venture to suggest that the minister referred to above might,
with a semblance of fairness, have presented at the same time, another
-"petition to the principals in the Philippine war, imploring them to settle their differences by arbitration." Without this second petition, the
principals in the former case might be be tempted to say, "Physician heal
;thyself;" or perchance, to quote a passage which says something about
"'first casting out the beam out of thine own eye."
Our dailies last Monday informed us that, on that very same Sunday, a train passed through Mattoon with two cars filled with soldiers on
their way to the Philippines. 0, consistency, thou art a jewel!
Let it not be supposed for a moment, that I am not in favor of arbitration (when it can be resorted to) for the settlement of international

as well as domestic difficulties. I am in favor of it, and have advocated
it for years. But I submit, it is not consistent for American citizens to
condemn others, while we ourselves are doing practically the same thing
and with no better justification.
The American people, as I recall, were not particularly enthusiastic
in 1894 in holding meetings to pass resolutions of sympathy with the
down-trodden Armenians, when the heartless Sultan had his cruel heel on
the necks of that brave people. How many protests did we make then
against a cold-blooded massacre of Armenian Christians, which for fiendish
atrocities it would not be easy to find a parallel? At what public meet
ings did we, fired with indignation and the righteousness of the cause, urge
the President to take any steps within the power of the government (as
we would have been fully warranted in doing,) to put a stop to wholesale
slaughter, and extermination? No, we did practically nothing. We looked
on indifferently, and allowed cruel, lustful Turks to use Armenian wives
and daughters in such a manner, that in scores and hundreds of cases they
preferred death by their own hand. God will surely hold the Christian
nations of the world responsible for non-interference in that bloody carnage.
And only a few years ago, the French started on a career of conquest of Madagascar, an island with which we had a large trade, and
over which the Hovas, a Christianized, and to a large extent a civilized
tribe exercised control. The work of conquest was undertaken because
of a covetous desire to possess that highly valued territory. But, while
the Hovas made a valiant resistance, we did not, to the best of my recollection, hold a single public meeting in the United States, to protest
against the aggressions of the French. If England had been the aggressor,
there is no doubt that meetings of protest would have been held in many
of our larger cities. While we kept ourselves strictly within our continental borders, it was competent for us to criticise the aggressive actions
of others, but now that -we have departed from this traditional policy it is
little short of hypocrisy for us to condemn others for carrying out a policy, which, at all events, has as much ground of justification as any we
can plead in support of our own action in the Philippines. It is the man
or the nation that is without sin which should throw the first stone.
MATTOOn, ILLINOIS, January 1, 1902.

THE BOER CONFLICT.
A-MERICAN

SYM
VMPATHY

AND

MEDIATION

By ANDREW GRAY, D.D.
From The Mattoon Commercial, Jan. 9, 1902.
To THE EDIToR:-The arguments made from time to time, to the effect that the contention between the Boers and the English should be left
to arbitration, and that the president of the United States should suggest
to the two parties that the time had come for meditation, show a decided
want of appreciation of our international and political conditions on the
part of those who make them. The Transvaal never was considered an
independent state. So far as foreign nations are concerned, it has been
under the sovereignty of Great Britain for years past, and as late as 1881
it acknowledged the suzerainity of Queen Victoria, in the articles of the
convention of that year-which articles have never been repealed. In
the convention articles of 1884, though the word suzerainity was not
used, yet the thing itself was reasserted in the following clause: "The
South African republic will conclude no'treaty or engagement with any
state or nation other than the Orange Free State, nor with any native
tribe eastward or westward of the republic, until the same shall be approved by her Majesty, the Queen," etc. The agreement reached at the
Hague did not apply to a case like this, and no sovereign state would admit, if it could prevent it, such an interference in its affairs. Would the
United States have accepted alien intervention in 1861'? Would this
country have submitted the settlement of its dispute with Mexico to the
arbitration of European powers? To ask the question is to answer it.
The suggestion that President Roosevelt would be a good mediator,
is peculiarly strained, for the reason that we have recently had the opportunity to realize the intensly provoking character of this form of in-terference. While we were engaged in war with Spain, there was a
;strong disposition on the part of some of the European powers to inter:fere in our affairs, by sending a joint note to Washington, requiring us to
naval and military operations to the region of the West
<confine our
Indies. It was England that then proved our friend, when by a unanimous vote of her cabinet, she positively declined to take part in any such
proceedings. The United States will be careful about forcing arbitra_
tion on Great Britain, when there is nothing more to arbitrate in South
Africa than there is in the Phillippines. The Venezuela case is not with-

II

out its lesson. While President Cleveland meant well, want of accurate
information, as to the English rights in the case, cost Venezuela dear,
and this country was humiliated by the unanimous decision of the arbitration commission, which awarded Venezuela far less than any British
minister had offered in attempts at compromise. All this is fully understood by the president and senate.
It will be remembered that several months ago, it was the decision
of a majority of the United States senate, that the resolution of sympathy
with the South African republics, introduced by Senator Pettigrew, should
not be taken up for consideration. Senator Hoar (who was opposed to
our holding the Philippines) was quite correct in saying, indirectly, that
a resolution of sympathy and commendation of the Boers, would be in
effect a condemnation of the policy which we had been pursuing in the
Philippine islands. This is exactly my contention, and in it I am supported by the United States senate in the case cited. The resolution in
question would have been like a two edged sword, which might easily
have been made to cut in either direction.
The senate saw that.
To
roundly condemn your neighbor, for proceedings akin to those in which
you are yourself indulging, is in effect to condemn your own actions; and
it is not at all improbable that Senator Pettigrew, in drafting his resolution, had in mind the influence it would have on the Filipino question
much more than any effect it might have on the South African problem.
The senators saw the probable results much more clearly than some others see them.
The Boston Herald has well said: "If the situations were reversed
and we were fighting the Boers, and the English were fighting the Filipinos, we may be sure that the same inconsistency in judgment would be
shown. Our contest against the Boers would then be regarded as
righteous and praiseworty, while Filipino delegates to the United States
would be welcomned as representing the. aspirations of freedom entertained by a long down-trodden people. This readiness to draw distinctions between what we do and what others do, simply because we rather
than they are doing it, is one of the characteristics when exhibited in
public affairs, of a national policy which is controlled by uninformed
popular sentiment, and is indicative of the dangers which may come upon
our country if we should become too deeply involved in international
problems before our people have learned to realize, as the people of Europe have, that in such matters, common prudence requires them to follow
the counsels of those who have made a close study of these subjects."
Before we took upon ourselves the responsibilities of distant possessions, and affirmed that we did not propose to in any way interfere
in matters outside of the American continent, we could pass all sorts of
resolutions, good, bad, or indifferent, with impunity; but times have

I 2

changed, and we cannot afford to run the risks of inviting reprisals. No
doubt the Filipino cause would have been greatly promoted, if Filipino
commissioners had been given enthusiastic receptions in London, but we.
should hardly consider that such a proceeding was an indication, on the
part of our English cousins, of a desire to observe the conditions of international amity.
It is becoming apparent that the sentiment in this country, which
favors action by our government to bring the war in South Africa to art
end and to maintain the political independence of the Boers, is for the
most part confined to those Americans who also argued that we should
leave the Philippine islands and allow the natives of that archipelago
entire freedom of political action. When we are ready to inform the
Filipinos that, regardless of the money we have spent and the lives we
have lost, we are willing to withdraw and let them manage their own afs,
fairs-although such a course would inevitably result in a revolution
there, and a sacrifice of life and treasure, compared with which that which
has already taken place would be small indeed-then, and not till then,
have we any logical right to demand that England should ignore the
money she has spent and the lives she has sacrificed, and leave the Boers
to their own devices. That is the way a "peace at any price" was patched
up in 1881, and the present war is the outcome of that unwise policy. If
we are in international affairs to maintain the doctrine that small and
less civilized communities have as much right to political independence
as large and highly civilized nations,(then we ought to begin that exhibition of faith in our own statements which consists in practicing what we
preach. Until we do this we are debarred from acting in the case of
others, and this conviction is making itself manifest in the attitude on
this subject which is being taken by the great mass of the better informed of the American people.
It would be surprising if among 75,000,000 of people there were not
many to sympathize with the Boers without regard to our own proceedings in other matters. Sympathy, whether aroused in a man or in a nation, is a commendable quality, but acts which we undertake at the bidding of sympathy, to escape being ridiculous, must be founded upon
logic, and supported by accurate information. Before they began their
war with England the Boers did not ask our sympathy, our assistance or
our intervention. At that time they professed their confidence in their
ability not only to defend themselves, but to force the English to abandon
South Africa. Now that they have put it to a test, and are destined to
failure, they are quite willing to solicit our assistance, and involve us
perchance in a war with England. If sympathy were to lead to intervention, then there was just as much reason for the European powers
intervening in our war with Spain, as there is for the United States

intervening in the war in South Africa.

13
It is well known that England does not ask, and would bitterly
resent, action on our part, while it would greatly please the nations of
continental Europe, who have no love for the Boers, but have hatred for=
England. When we get down to the last analysis of international feeling,
it is found that these same'continental nations have an equally marked
detestation for us, as was shown a few years ago, as I said above, when a
crises came in our affairs. If they could succed in stirring up hostility
between England and the United States, it would be a signal stroke of
Machiavelian policy, one which the chancellors of the continental powers
would have cause to chuckle over, as it would permit the two great representatives of political freedom to damage and weaken each other, and thus
make them powerless to act in harmony in resisting the future undertakings of the dominant military despotisms of the old world. One may be
tolerably sure that if these artful plotters in continental Europe succeeded in weakening and discrediting England, as would unquestionably be
the case, if the plan were carried out to its logical conclusions, by depriving her of her South African possessons, their next step would be to divide China up among them, and to find excuses in sympathetic regard
for Aguinaldo and his friends, for interference with us and for dispossessing us of the Philippine islands.
What does intervention mean? It is put forward just as intervention in the time of our civil war was advanced-as a means of aiding one
combatant. It is advocated exclusively by those who desire to see the
Boers victorious and the English defeated. No amount of diplomatic
talk can disguise this fact. Hence to the English it would mean, just as
:intervention would have meant in our case in 1862-3, a declaration of war,
since England, in a matter which she believes appertains to her national
rights and integrity, would no more tolerate the intrusion of a foreign
power into the problem than we would have allowed foreign intrusion in
our domestic quarrel. In addition: to this, the following statement in the
Monroe doctrine has a direct bearing on what should be our national
policy: "In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to
themselves, we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our
policy to do so." To interfere in the South African problem would be,
in effect, to abrogate one of the most clearly defined restrictions in the
Monroe doctrine, and by thus contemptuously setting it aside ourselves,
we would announce to the world at large that it was a principle of international action which they need no longer respect.
If to this we should further add, as we assuredly will in a few more
years, the maintenance of a ship canal across the isthmus, we shall have
vulnerable points east, west and south, far removed from the main land,
and on this account calling for much greater effort on our part in the
case of war, than would under the old conditions have been necessary,

14
and making it incumbent upon us to think twice, or even three times,
before we needlessly provoke the hostility of our neighbors across the
seas by comments and criticisms.
Bishop Hartzell said some months ago: "There may arise questions
in South America touching its governments
It is an open secret in high
diplomatic circles of Europe that the test of America's right to give advice as to South American matters may come in the near future. With_
the United States and England one, that test can never be a serious one,.
but with them divided the issue may be of a serious type much sooner
than we think."
Commencing with the 20th century a committee of five will rule the
has given
world-America, England, Germany, Russia and France.
the unquestioned leadership to the two English-speaking, Anglo-Saxon
nations, one in language, one in liberty, one in religion, one in civil
justice and one in freedom of commerce, more perfectly than between
either of them and any other nation. Let that unity stand, let it grow naturally as the best interests of humanity require that it should grow, not
as a menace to any other nation or people, but as the friend of all nations
and as the commander of the peace and well-being of the world.

-God

MATTOON, Illinois, January 6, 1902.

WAR IN SOUTH AFRICA.
Concentration Camps and American Condemnation.
By ANDREW GRAY, D.D.
From The Mattoon Commercial, Jan. 23, 1902.
To THE EDIToR:-A good deal has been said and written of late by
American citizens by way of denunciation of the concentration camps,
established by Gen. Kitchner in South Africa, and it has been asserted
that the death rate, resulting from such concentration has been exceptionally large, and they have been denounced accordingly as most inhuman.

The Boston Herald said, editorially, a few weeks ago: "It is not
improbable that the loss of life, due to the concentration camps that have
been established in South Africa has been exaggerated, and that while

.5
the death rate has been abnormally high, it has been less severe than
common report has credited it to be. But the experience, both in Cuba
and South Africa, makes it evident that, when a government endeavors
to subdue an unwilling people, who, rather than yield, are ready to sacrifice everything, it is compelled to resort to methods which can only fitly
be described as barbarous."
In other words, war is war; it is not a picnic.
General Sherman said of it-"War is hell!"

We all know what

It is worthy of remark in passing, that the army physicians, whose duty
it is to care for the sick in said camps, have recently sent an official report
to the government on the subject of the abnormal death rate. They report that it can easily be accounted for, and is the result of two causes;
first, that many of the Boers are very superstitious; that they often refuse to take the medicine prescribed for them, and that they put more
confidence in charms and badges than in medicine. Secondly, they report that one of the most difficult and unpleasant duties they have to
perform is to compel them to submit to the luxury of a bath. Even
women in prison camps and hospital quarters, resist desperately, even a
sponge bath, both for themselves and their children. In this they certainly are not much like the women of Holland who are proverbial for
their cleanliness. If the report of the-physicians is correct--and I have
never seen any attempt at contradiction-then it follows that the concentration camps are not, per se, the cause of the large death rate.
But it is said that if the American people felt called upon to protest
against such camps in the case of the Cubans, that they are also called
upon to protest in the case of the Boers. The fact that the Cuban hardships were endured only a few miles from our shores, while the others
take place thousands of miles away, does not, alter the fact that one as well
as the other is an awful evidence of the outcome of war, and that the latter might be brought to an end if the American people took it upon themsel yves, as they did in the case of the Cubans, to ask that the contention
be brought to an immediate end. Unfortunately, those of our fellow-countrymen who seem disposed to urge President Roosevelt to action of this
kind, fail to take into account that, if we are to hold our English cousins
up to a high standard of humanity, we must, at last, enter upon our selfelected duty of righting wrongs with hands entirely clean. It so happens
that, allowing for differences in conditions, we are practicing in the Philippine Islands a system of suppression which is much the same as
that which Gen. Kitchner is practicing in South Africa. The general
commanding our forces in the Philippines has recently stated that apparently all the Filipinos are at heart rebels against the United States,
and that they merely need opportunity to become active enemies. We
have statements made from time to time that the end of the war is near,

16
but it is deserving of notice that these statements are commonly made
during the hot and wet season of the year, and that, with the return of
the relatively cool and dry season, there are renewed outbreaks among
the insurgents. One of the latest reports is to the effect that, while every
effort has, been made to decrease the expenses of the American army in
the Philippine Islands, a reduction can hardly be hoped for, because of
the activity of the insurgents in a number of different places, and also the
necessity of sending troops to preserve order in many towns where municipal governments have been established.
Gen. Chaffee, speaking of the island of Samar, has said that the situation there demands a policy of rigid starvation, and giving of food only
to those who surrender, or who will stay in the towns. There is nothing
to make a policy of this kind any more justifiable than that which Gen.
Kitchner has adopted in South Africa. It is cruel, it may even be called
inhuman, but it is probably the only policy that can be adopted if popular resistance is to be crushed out, and another and better form of government established. If we are justified in adopting these methods against
those whom we term rebels in the Philippine Islands, then Gen. Kitchner
is justified in adopting them against those whom he calls rebels in South
Africa. It would be absurd for us to condemn in others a course of action which we are finding it advisable to practice on our own account.
Let us hope that hereafter war, with its attendant horrors, may be
prevented by arbitration; but in all our doings in regard to the present
evils of war, let us at least be consistent.
Since writing the foregoing a Blue Book has been issued, on the
subject of the concentration camps in South Africa, which contains detailed explanations from Lord Milner, the British High Commissioner,
and Lord Kitchner, as to the causes of the high death rate in the camps.
They confirm the report of the army physicians, referred to above, and
refute the charges of cruelty. Lord Kitchner emphatically denies Commandant Schalk-Burger's allegations of the forcible removal and exposure
of women in a delicate condition, and as emphatically he denies the accusation of rough and cruel treatment of women and children. He
says, moreover:
"I offered Botha to leave the families and relatives of fighting
burghers in undisturbed possession of their farms, if Botha would agree
to spare the farms of the surrendered burghers. Botha emphatically refused, saying, 'I am entitled to force every man to join, and if they do
not join, to confiscate their property and leave their families on the:
veldt.' " There are usually two sides to a story, and it is evident that
this story has a second side to it, which, when told, puts an altogether
different face on it. Fiatjustitia ruat coelum.
MATTOON, ILLINOIs, January 15,

1902.

THE BOER WAR.
MUCH AMERICAN SYMPATHY MISPLACED.

By ANDREW GRAY, D.D.
From the Mattoon Commercial February 6, 1902.
To THE EDITOR:-Only a little while ago Boer sympathizers in this
country were actively engaged in obtaining signatures to a petition to
President Roosevelt, urging him to use his influence with the British
government to secure a commutation of the death sentences which had
been pronounced against the Boer Commandant Scheepers by military
authority in South Africa. One of the great dailies said that over a
bushel of such petitions had reached the president. The president however, did not interfere. He knew some things which the petitioners have
perhaps found out since. And the sentence was duly executed on Saturday, Jan. 18, 1902.
On Jan. the 23rd in the House of Commons, William Redmond
(Irish Nationalist and Pro-Boer) asked the war secretary, Mr. Brodrick,
why Commandant Scheepers was executed on Saturday last at GraffReinet, Cape Colony. The secretary replied that "Scheepers was shot
because he had been convicted of various offences against the usages of
war, including seven cold-blooded murders of natives and the flogging of
a white man. Mr. Brodrick added that the fact that Commandant
Scheepers was a prisoner of war, carried no exemption from trial for
murder or other violations of the rules of, war." Pro-Boers. have had
very little to say about this "dastardly cruel act," since this exposure of
the more "dastardly cruel acts" of the criminal who was executed.
One J. G Henderson of Wellington, N. Z. (a man of enormous
wealth) writes to the London Times offering to hold himself legally
bound to pay the sum of £10,000 or $50,000, if the charges of inhumanity
on the part of the British troops in the South African war. be proved
within six months. The treasurers of four London hospitals are named
as arbiters. If Mr. Henderson loses, half the money is to go to the hospitals in London, the rest to be divided between the hospitals of Paris,.
Berlin, Brussels and Amsterdam. Now let those who have been so ready
to make charges bestir themselves in collecting such evidence or proof of
their accusations, as would be accepted in our courts of justice-nothing
more is asked-and the $50,000 will be paid to these noble charities.

18
But I feel sure the evidence will not be produced, It is easier to make
charges than to prove them.
In this connection, I ask you to be good enough to add to my letter
the following editorial, taken from the Boston Herald for January 27,
1902. It furnishes a sufficient refutation of the charges of cruielty and
inhumanity against Boer prisoners in Bermuda.
The Herald says:
"We printed last week a letter from Mr. John
S. Hodgson in regard to the Boer prisoners in Bermuda,' and the
ridiculous stories that have been told of their suffering and abuse
in the British camps. He quoted some statements which were made
in regard to these camps in October last in an appeal for clothes
and money for Boer prisoners who were kept insa camp, where "thee sanitary conditions are such that a prominent physician who knows says that
they will be dying off at the rate of twenty a day," Mr., Hodgson points
out' that the agent who investigated these camps 'for a local society that
was interested in doing something for these Boers, found that the general
condition of the prisoners was not at all deplorable, and that many of the
wild tales of suffering and misery had been grossly exaggerated. Instead
of the prisoners dying off at the rate of twenty a day from fever, there
had been at the time of his investigation only two deaths among the entire number.of prisoners, though he feared that the list would be extended owing' to two or three prisoners who were suffering from pneumonia
and Bright's disease, and this in a camp containing over 5,000 prisoners.
Some time ago a letter was published in a Boston paper purporting
to:be written by Joubert Reitz, a son of Secretary. Reitz of the late Transvaal government, a prisoner of war confined on Tucker's island. This
letter was smuggled out of camp, neither of the censors having passed it.
It charged that the British government was starving the prisoners of war
and neglecting to give them the necessary wearing apparel. As a matter
of bread
of fact, the:Boer prisoners receive, man for man, a larger (ration
and meat -than do the British soldiers who are guarding them, while, in
addition, the Boers are given a free grochry ration which: the British soldiers do not get. Since July 1st, last,. the British ,government has sent
to Bermuda not less than 7,000 suits of clothing for the prisoners of war
includihg boots, hats, underclothing and overcoats. These have been
givenr to the prisoners free of charge. The medical authorities at Bermuda now announce that no old clothes sent from the United States, :will
be distributed among the Boers, on account of the risk of infection and,
as the prisoners of war are supplied with :the 'necessaries of life free of
charge,, no hardship will come from this decree: If tobacco is sent,
money 'must also be sent to pay the duty, which :is about twelve .cents a;
pound. Otherwise the tobacco cannot be brought into the islands,
to the con=
Now .that: the reports of the British authorities in.regard

'9
ditionofaffairs in the prison camps at Bermuda have been fully borne
out by the report of an American agent, who has gone there for one of
our local charitable organizations, it would seem as though there were
many :worthy objects near at home that need help much more than do
these Boers at Bermuda, To veterans who had experience with confederate prisons during the civil war, the reports of the "hardships" these
Boers are put to in Bermuda must make amusing reading. Compared
with the prison camps of the civil war, the Boer camp at Bermuda would
be a paradise, and any Salvation Army officer can find at least a thousand
more in need of clothing, food and shelter than are these prisoners at a
noted health resort, who are fed, clothed, and sheltered as well as the
British soldiers who guard them.
MATTOON, ILLINOIS., February 1st, 1902.

DEMOCRATIC RESOLUTIONS.
The Democrats as a party in' the House of Representatives, met in
caucus a few weeks ago, and declared that their sympathy is with the
Boers in the conflict between them and Great' Britain., Their resolutions, so avowing their sympathy, are very much like an innocuous
expression of opinion. They are apparently intended to bear fruit at
home. As far as they are designed to operate on the British government
they come, to use their :own language, "in the spirit of amity and friendship." They expressly disclaim any intention of putting their opinion
into action, recognizing, as they do, that it would be improper for them
to do so. Their third resolution says that the United States should fairly
and honorably maintain a position of strict neutrality in this contest between nations friendly to us, and see to it that the neutrality laws are
vigorously and impartially enforced."
This clear acknowledgment of the obligation of the. United States
towards Great Britain as regards the difficulty she has had with her Boer
antagonists, and the bounden duty of this nation to so act upon it as to
preserve strict neutrality in the contest, makes the declaration, as to what
should be her action(which we find in the second resolution of the series)
purely academic. We are not sure that this second, resolution, interpreted by'itself, means much in the way of action. It favors the accept.ance, by the British government, of "overtures for peace," its ceasing of
hostilities and its "endeavor to bring about a just and honorable setAt the present stage of the conflict this
-tlement of existing differences."
does not of necessity mean Boer independence: We must go to the preresolution to find independence indorsed. But it strikes us that

-ceding

20

it is a little late to expect the concession of independence from Great
Britain. There is no reason to look for it as practical. If there ever
was a time when independence was attainable, with the consent of Great
Britain, that time has passed. An honorable peace is practicable, and
such adjustment of differences as will give to the Boer people, under the
liberal spirit which Great Britain exhibits towards all her dependencies;
but while this nation maintains the attitude toward Great Britain embodied in the third of these Democratic resolutions, (which we have copied
above) nothing further can fairly be expected to come from our interference as a nation.
The passing of such resolutions is, therefore, entirely gratuitous.
Admitting that the significance of the resolutions was the impression
which they were meant to convey, then it follows that analogous, action
to it, on the part of Great Britain, would be the adoption by the British
House of Commons of resolutions declaring-that, in the American contest
in the Philippine Islands, the people of the British nation sympathize
with the Filipinos "in their heroic struggle to maintain their liberty and
independence."
If the American people did not smile at such a declaration, we are inclined to think that they would regard it as a useless, if
not unwarrantable, interference on the part of the British people. Any
menace which it might be suspected to contain, would, of course,
cancelled by a similar declaration of the purpose of strict neutrality, to
that which the democrats inserted. But we are inclined to think the
general inquiry in the American mind would be, to what end this British
action had.been taken; and its clearly gratuitous character- would ,be regarded.as an exhibition of national unfriendliness on the part of Great
Britain. And so, applying the case to ourselves, we would ask, is there
any good to be expected from a voluntary expression of an unpleasant
opinion. toward Great Britain, on the part of the American nation, in the
Boer contest ?

-be

It seems to us that the framers of these democratic resolutions, by
pledging themselves to support a strict neutrality on the part of the
United States in the contest, in effect, declare that the United States will
do nothing between the parties. Then, we would ask, why should the
United States say anything? There might be some justification for
national protest if humanity was being outraged, as in the case of
Armenia, and as many American people thought was the case when the
cruelties of concentration in camps was decreed by Gen. Weyler in Cuba.
But we find no authentic intelligence of anything of this kind in South
Africa-it is not alleged in the democratic resolutions. Nothing is
charged 'except that Boer sovereignty is to pass into British sovereignty.
Setting aside the question as to whether this is any of our business as a
nation, we see no reason to believe that the :practical freedom of the

21

people of South Africa is likely to suffer by the change. Is it not clear
-to every intelligent mind, that in human progress the whole people will
be improved by it, and that there will be more freedom and more equality
-under British rule in South Africa than there ever was under Boer rule?
Look at Egypt, as it is to-day, for the answer.

PEACE AFTER WAR.
After two and a half years of war, the prospect of peace seems
almost, too good to be true. And yet that prospect is actually in sight.
First, we were told that those calling themselves the Transvaal Government, had been permitted under safe-conduct to confer with Mr. Steyn.
'Next, we were informed that the representatives of the two late Republics
were in conference at Klerksdrop. And then came the news that all the
Boer leaders had returned to Pretoria, where they were obviously awaiting something. Now it is officially announced that the Cabinet has re-ceived a communication from the Boer leaders, that it has sent a reply,
and now awaits another communication. We may therefore safely speculate on the lines of a possible settlement.
And first, it is clear that independence has been dropped on the part
of the Boers. The last negotiations, it will be remembered, came to grief
that point. The British Government declined to discuss independence,
and the Boers intimated that no other points were worthy of long discussion. From the fact that the new move originated with the Boers, we
may conclude that they have abandoned the futile claim of independence.
This means much. Having once realized the uselessness of contending
for an independence that never did them any good, we may reasonably
hope that they now see that, within the British Empire, it will be possible for them to enjoy a freedom, an independence, and a prosperity
such as they could never attain under the narrow oligarchy which had
_Mr. Kruger at its head. If the Boers will study the lesson of Egypt,
they will see how British influence can breathe the breath of an independent life into the dry bones of national decrepitude, can quicken and
foster a national spirit, can develope national life, can restore a wasted,
ruined and oppressed country to prosperity and self respect. What a
difference between the Egypt of to-day and the Egypt of Arabi! 'Which,
we may ask, is the best off, Egypt under Lord Cromer, or the Transvaal
under Mr. Kruger? It will be worth much if men like Schalk-Burger,
-Botha and De la Rey can be brought to accept the inevitable voluntarily;
the resulting settlement is likely then to be more satisfactory than one
.arrived at perhaps after their capture or death in the field.
The questions of the Boer debt and of re-stocking farms are of
minor importance. Most assuredly England will not undertake respon-

,on

22

sibility for such expenditure as Mr. Kruger and his colleagues saw fit to
incur for their own ends. Nor will the government pay for materials
bought on requisitioned in the prosecution of war against Great Britain.
But there need be no difficulty about the legitimate debts of the late
Boer Governments. And in the matter of re-settling the new territories,
England can afford to be generous up to a certain point. Nothing
whatever should be given to those who have violated their oaths, and the
cost of maintaining the Boer families ,may be fairly charged against those
liable for their support. But this could be spread over a number of
years. For the rest, reasonable advances might be made, by way of loan,
not of gift. And it will not do to forget that, the ruin of the country
and the long detention of so many thousands of prisoners has been due
entirely to the obstinacy of the leaders who are now asking for peace.
The crux of the matter will prove to be the treatment of the Cape
rebels. Here is a real difficulty. It is easy for a rich and powerful
country to be generous in the hour of victory. Probably the general sense
of the nation would be in favor of letting these men off and letting the
past be forgotten. And if England had only herself to consider, this
would be the easiest and least troublesome course. But in reality, the
treatment of these rebels is a question of Imperial consideration. England must consider the loyalists of the Cape and of Natal, and not them
only, but also the loyal and devoted citizens of Australia, New Zealand
and Canada. The Cape rebels have offended against all these. They
have outraged that sentiment of loyalty and unity which has been so wonderfully manifested all over the Empire. That sentiment is England's
Imperial asset. 'It is, beyond all questions, the greatest and most effective security she can have against attack. To it she owes, in great measure, the forbearance of Continental powers, who were not her friends, and
who would assuredly have shown their hands, at the time of her greatest
difficulties, if they had not realized that the first menace on their part
would have been the signal of a call to arms from tens of thousands of"
colonists. No matter what may be the promptings of generosity and the
consciousness of strength and of success, England cannot, she dare not
play fast and loose with this sentiment. She could not announce to her
loyal colonists that she recognized no difference between them and the
rebels, and that she did not hold treason to be a crime. The utmost she
can do is to promise that she will not pursue the rebels, if they make
themselves scarce. But, (and here the government must be firm) it should
be clearly understood that any rebel who remains on British soil must
take the consequences of his treason. He will be liable to be brought to
trial under the Treason Laws which have been passed to meet his case.
Those who have been guilty of robbery, arson, or murder, must be
prepared to be dealt with as their crimes deserve. To give way on the
question of amnesty, would be absolutely fatal to peace, and would be subversive of all Imperial sentiment. England was generous to a fault in
the "Peace" of 1881, and she has paid dearly for her too great magnanimity. She will, we venture to say, be more careful this time. We expect generosity, but we also expect such wise counsels as will prevent
another war. Mercy will be shown, but it will be mingled this time with
better judgment.

CECIL JOHN RHODES.
AN ESTIMATE OF THE MAN.
By ANDREW GRAY, D.D.
Mattoon Commercial, April 17, 1902.
To THE EDITOR:

An editorial note appeared in your
issue of the 3rd inst., on the death
of Cecil Rhodes, which to my mind
is calculated to give so erroneous an
impression of the man, that I am
constrained to ask the use of your
columns, in order to do even scant
jnstice to him who was yesterday laid
to rest amid the scene of his activities
and triumphs. There is an old adage which admonishes us, "Of the
dead speak nothing but good." You
have not only forgotten this, apparently, but to be very frank, as well
as very kind, I venture to say that
the statements in the note referred
to, are not correct. Allow me please,
to say something about the characteristics and achievements of the man.
Cecil Rhodes was the younger son
of an English clergyman. He was
born in 1853, and educated at Oxford, He went to South Africa in
quest of health before he was twentyone and before taking his degree.
He went to the then new diamondfields, where he made money, regained his health, and then returned to
college to finish his studies. Returning to the diamond-mines at
Kimberley, his astounding energy,
great capacity and good fortune soon
placed him at the head of the De
Beers-Kimberley consolidation, with

a capital of $20,000,000. The discovery of gold in the Transvaal afforded him new opportunities for
making money, treating with natives,
and managing finance on a gigantic
scale.
He saw what others saw, the opportunity for acquiring wealth; but
he saw also what others did not see
-the immense advantage of Africa in
the business world of the future, and
especially to England, with her overcrowded population. It has been
said that "there is a tide in the affairs of men which, if taken at the
right moment, will float them on to
fortune." He saw the opportune
moment and seized it
Our own Jef
ferson saw it in 1803, when he secured for the United States the Empire of the West.
It was the good fortune of Cecil
Rhodes to go to South Africa at the
time when the value of that country
for trade and for settlement was apparent to a far-seeing man like himself; at the time too, when it was
possible (as is often the case in new
and rich countries) to make a fortune
in a brief space of time. And yet
no one can truthfully say that he
was a fortune hunter, or a lover of
money for its own sake.
Early in his career he conceived
the plan of making an empire in
Africa. Very soon he was at the
head of almost everything of importance which took place in South
Africa. In 1889 he secured the
charter for the British South African

Company. The next year he became tory he had secured, and introduced
Premier,of Cape Colony, and re- the rule:of law and justiqe into-the
mained in office six years. The ex- region. !,It was through him that
tention of British authority to and South Africa, developed and prosover . Bechuanaland,so greatly to pered; and despite all that, his enethe advantage of the
natives,
mies may say or do, the name of
as well as of Great
Britain,
Cecil Rhodes will never be effaced
was almost entirely through the in- from the land which he brought to
fluence of this one man. And the the notice of the world, and which
acquisition of Mashonaland and he, as a patriot, gave to his country.
Metabeleland, which constitute the One who appreciated his worth has
vast section now known as Rhodesia, said: "The man was so great, that
was principally his work, through if God had spared his life, possibilithe agency of the chartered Com- ties would have bean opened to him
pany before referred to.
which his own energy and that alone
It was Cecil Rhodes who saw the would limit. The English would
vast importance of binding together bow down to him as to the man who
and making easily exploitable all first brought under their notice this
African territory under British rule
new accession of power for their counand hence he planned the gigantic,
try, and the Africanders would give
scheme of the "Cape to Cairo Rail
way to the secret leaning they have
road," and when that road is once always had towards him."
completed, it will be an enduring
To say that he made mistakes is
monument to his for-sightedness. He in other words, to say that he was
has been called in derision an em- human. How could any man, operpire builder; but he was that in fact.
ating on a scale so truly gigantic.
Other men were working in sections avoid making some mistakes? But
of South Africa for immediate profit; his very mistakes show the greatness
he dealt with the Continent as a of the man. He had enemies. He
whole, and not merely in its relation would not.have been the great man
to the British empire, but with a he was had it not been so; and inview to the commercial development
deed some of his enemies but add
of the future which he foresaw.
a lustre to his name. But we would
He it was who changed the gloomy
ask his enemies to point out one
wilderness of the past into a settled single act of his, in which he was
country. He it was that, opened up
guilty of tyranny, oppression, overthe country to civilization, and we reaching, or in any way taking an
might almost say, created South Afundue advantage of the poor, the
rica. He worked and developed the weak, the ignorant, or the helpless.
mines. He joined the country to On the contrary, in him they alivays
the civilized world by means of railfound a friend whom they could
roads and telegraph lines. He felled trust and on whom they could rely.
the forests, drained the swamps, inSimple justice is what we claim for
troduced sanitation, build the fac- him, and in claiming it, we feel that
tories, gave employment to the nawe are serving the interests of South
tives, built towns and villages, Africa and of its people, black and
brought in colonists,
white alike, for he was the friend
promoted
education, defended settlers against
and benefactor of them all.
Metabele or Basuto raids,. mainBetween a man of such progresstained the peace necessary for
ive ideas and activities, and the type
the welfare of the vast terri- of man represented by the unpro-

gressive Boer, it is easy to see that
friction was .ineitable, but in justice
to Mr. Rhodes.it ought to be said
that he believed in conciliation
rather than ing force; that his kindness to the natives won their respect
and confidence, and that in statesmanship and business alike he was a
man who built along large lines in a
constructive spirit, and not simply as
a money-maker, striving to secure
the most for himself in the shortest
possible time. There was nothing
of selfishness in him whatever, nor
was he possessed of a spirit 'of lust
or greed. He had great ideas, but
they were not for himself alone. He
had great conceptions which he succeeded in working out to a considerable extent, and which the future
will develope and complete. Such a
man is a benefactor of mankind, and
the world is the richer because he
lived in it.
The fact that he had planned to
build a University in South Africa,
and that he has left a great fortune
largely for. educational purposes,
serve to interpret the man's nature
and lofty aims. The Record-Herald
said of him editorially:
"Just as Bismarck and the present
Emperor have justified the enormous
expenditures for the maintenance of
the German army by the plea that
its overwhelming strength was the
safest guaranty of peace, so power
as the essential conservator of peace
is the dominating idea of the will of
Cecil Rhodes.
There is this difference, however,
between the idea of Bismarck and
the ideals of Rhodes: Bismarck believed in the massing of bayonets by
the million to command peace,
Rhodes has disposed of his millions
to pave the way through education
to a community of knowledge and
sympathy between nations that can
forbid war.
This is what he meant when he

wrote:
'A good understanding between
England, Germany and the United
States will secure the,, peace of the
world, and educational relations form
the strongest tie.'
If the provisions of his will shall
have the effect to clear the motes of
international misconceptions, suspi
cions and jealousies from British,
German and American eyes Cecil
Rhodes may yet be immortalized as
the apostle of universal peace
Teutonic
consolidated
through
power"
Cecil Rhodes was truly one of
England's greatest men-an Empire
builder and founder of a colossal
fortune. As Robert Clive gave to
his country the empire of India, so
Cecil Rhodes gave to her the Empire
of South Africa.
A close parallel has been drawn
between the lives of these two remarkable men, one belonging to the
eighteenth century, the other to the
nineteenth.
Circumstances made Clive a soldier at twenty-five and Rhodes a
At
at twenty-seven.
statesman
thirty-two Clive was virtually the
ruler, in the name of the East India
Company, of the two great dependencies of Madras and Bengal; at
thirty-four Rhodes had placed under
the flag of his country the vast territories of Bechuanaland and Rhodesia. And after achieving a worldwide fame both died at the age of
forty-nine.
Clive was rewarded with a peerage, and it is almost certain that a
similar honor would have fallen to
Rhodes had it not been for his unfortunate connection with the Jamison Raid. But while we frankly admit that this ill-advised and unlawful
enterprise left a stain upon his otherwise fair escutcheon, still we emphatically deny that it was the cause
of a war, for which there is over-

whelming evidence that the Boer
government was making preparatons years before the raid occurred.
But notwithstanding all, Rhodes'
mastery of men and of affairs would
again have placed him at the head
of South African affairs at the close
of the war had his health been restored and his life prolonged. His
unrivalled capacity for organization
and for government, would have
made him indispensable to the British government. Rhodes, like Napoleon, was one who not only saw
opportunities, but made them. Both
were called lucky men, but luck to
them was foresight and preparedness for events, They were seldom,
taken by surprise. Their combinations seldom failed.
To say that Cecil Rhodes did more
for the developement and civilization
of South Africa, as well as for the
elevation and enfranchisement of the
many native tribes, than any of his
enemies, would be a very small meed
of praise. He did immeasurably

more than all of them put togeth3r.
It was befitting that for such departed greatness there should be civic
and military honors; but of him it
may be said, as of the great Wilberforce, "His nobler portion was to
clothe a people in spontaneous
mourning, and to go down to his
grave amid the tears and benedictions of the poor."
The moral of the life and achievements of Cecil Rhodes is to be drawn
hereafter when they can be better
estimated. For the present he stands
as one of the heroic figures of the
nineteenth century, among England's great sons. His memory will
never perish, nor will his name be
forgotten. In the long after years,
the children's children of those whom
he has blessed and made happy, will
recall his name with gratitude and
tears and keep that name and memory fresh.
Requiem aeternam dona ei, Domine, et lux perpetua luceat ei.
MATTOON, Ill., April 11, 1902.

WILL OF CECIL RHODES.
By ANDREW GRAY, D. D.
To THE EDIToR:-Please allow me in addition to what I said in my
letter on the late Cecil Rhodes (which appeared in your columns last
week,) to give expression to a few thoughts suggested by his very unique
will.
It is a striking testimony to the commanding influence of the man,
that the interest with which the civilized world awaited the news from what
proved to be his death-bed, was speedily transferred to the provisions
of his will. There is an indescribable pathos about his death, and as one
says "farewell" to Cecil Rhodes, he cannot but be impressed with the sense
of his victory, even in dying. The vision of one blessed with such far;
sightedness as he possessed, will not be baulked by the accident of death.
Mr. Rhodes provided for carrying on his work. The future must be
taken into account with this man, whose plans were not measured by
a life time, nor by the little limited intelligence of the cunning peasant,
whose one idea was getting and keeping. It was just this widespread
international consciousness of the greatness of the man that kept Europe
and America hushed around his death-bed. "Are there," asks one writer, "half a dozen in the world on whose last moments the world has hung
as on those of Mr. Rhodes ? Has there been any will since that of Julius
Caesar, which has excited so much interest and stired up such deep feeling ?" The interest in his will was not of a selfish kind. It seemed that
every one expected that the will of such a man would be different from
every other will. Other men have left great fortunes, which have been
disposed of by more remarkable provisions, and yet have not been a nine
days' wonder. But all who knew him, realized that his will would not
be like one of these.
The first striking feature about this will is its witness to the value of
education. It revives the mediaeval ideas of education as an international concern. Then the learned had one common language-Latin;
one common comity-the University.
The University was then cosmopolitan. The imaginative power of Mr. Rhodes recalls those days. In
his mind Oxford once more becomes the alma mater of those who seek
learning from different nationalities. Her influence is to be spread

abroad among the nations, leading as he hoped to a better mutual understanding, and to a higher mutual appreciation, which is a bond of peace.
Passing over the provisions as to the promotion of physical and moral
excellence, the next really characteristic feature is the dominance, in Mr.
Rhodes' opinion, of the streneous life-the value of steady, persistent
work as an influence upon character. How many millionaires have been
content to leave their wealth to idle and unprofitable children? As if the
getting of wealth, rather than the duty of work and doing good, had been
their ruling pasion.
Cecil Rhodes got wealth, and plenty of it, but to
him wealth was never the sole, or even the chief object of work. Work
to him was sacred, for its own sake, and he has provided that no one will
ever 'inherit his wealth, in scholarships and otherwise, who does not
share his views as to the duty of work. It is a great lesson; needful in
these times when money is worshipped, and the one over-powering desire
of many is avowedly to work in order to get rich.
How much may be expected from this remarkable will, it would be
idle to conjecture.
Certainly it will have a remarkable influence on
Oxford. The bringing together of 250 to 300 additional students from
different nations must have important results. The results may not be
all that Mr. Rhodes anticipated, but nevertheless, we honor the memory
of the man who could think these thoughts and plan these plans. Here we
see no greedy capitalist, bit hatrue, philanthropic, world-citizen-a man
who could conceive'and plan race-interests and try to work them out.
We cannot help, in bonclusion, pointing to the triumphant answer
which the dead man gives to the pro-Boers who have so often spent their
Venom in-trying to impugn his motives, and in mean attacks upon his
character. This is the representative of the capitalists who according to
the pro-Boers, made war for the sake of gold and diamond mines-which they
already posssesed--and waded through blood and tears to acquire riches!
'Preposperous! These are the thoughts and plans of the chief of the adventurers who sacrified a gentle, honest and industrious peasantry in
their thirst for gold! We may ask what pro-Boer of them all, in this or
in any other country, has been capable of such an imagination, of such
;thoughts, of such a will ? Would to God that there were in every land
more men like the great benefactor of his fellows, Cecil Rhodes. De
mortuis nil nisi bonum.
MATTOON, Illinois April 21, 1902.

ENGLAND'S RULE IN EGYPT.
By ANDREW GRAY, D. D.
To THE EDIToR:-We often hear about the grasping Englishman
reaching out for territory and .of his -greed for gold, but the people who make
these charges seldom pause to consider what a great factor England has
been in the civilization and commercial advancement of the world. An example of this ,is seen in the condition of Egypt to-day, as compared with
what it was twventy years ago. At that time the British government took
control of Egypt in order to -avert troubles which were impending and
appeared certain to come. The country was heavily in debt. The taxation was extremely burdensome to. the people, The government was
practically an oriental despotism that was held in check only by the
influence of the European powers. "Foreign creditors were never sure of
their dividends. The police and the courts of justice were given a bad
name, even by those who are used to all forms of judicial corruption and
governmental oppression. The slave trade was flourishing in the upper
Nile provinces, and there was an outbreak of Mahdism, which was turning into barbarism a large portion.of that fertile country.
Contrast that picture with the Egypt of to-day. There has been a
steady reduction in recent years of the land tax. The Fellah is no
longer open to extortion and fraud., The slave trade has been stamped
out. The public works have,been carried on effectively and economically, and extensive irrigation plans are, not only giving employment to
thousands of people at lucrative wages, but increasing rapidly the area
of cultivable land. According to Lord Cromer's last report, the finances
of the country are in excellent condition, 'the budget for 1902 showing
an estimated revenue of £11,060,000: against expenditures of £10,850,
000, a surplus of revenue over expenditures of £210,000. Nor is this
really a fair showing of the surplus for £734,000 of the expenditures
will be applied to the extinction of debt, bringing the real excess of
receipts over current expenditure.up to £944,000
The Glasgow Herald in commenting on this showing some time ago
said, "It is no exaggeration to affirm that Egypt is the best governed and
materially the most prosperous country in the Mediterranean basin, and
for
happy transformation the credit belongs to the British govern-ment." This statement is no more than the truth, and England deserves
tall.the credit which can be given her for what she. has done in Egypt.

this

And it should be remembered that in all these reforms she was opposed
by the jealousy of several of the European powers, and was not for some
years given a very cordial support from the Khedive himself.
Let us look at the fiscal return of Lord Cromer, the British Consul
General of Egypt, in another way, and it will bring out the prosperity of
the country all the more clearly. He reports a surplus for the year 1901,
of £500,000 and an increase in the revenue of £250,000. Now the
British occupancy of Egypt dates from 1882. For the first four years
there was a total deficit of £13,000,000, owing largely to the great expenditure necessary for improvements in various departments of public
works, as well as in sanitation and the re-fitting and refurnishing of
public offices. But since 1887, the aggregate surplus has been the snug
little sum of £10,000,000.
The British can derive satisfaction from this state of things at the
Northern end of Africa, as they contemplate the condition of the exchequer and the cost of the war in the South. At the present time the
government is engaged in a gigantic enterprise for the improvement of
the Nile valley. It seems to be the intention of the government to reclaim from the desert sands an immense strip of territory, and to turn
the Nile.region, by irrigation and otherwise, into a great field of agriculture and commerce, thus making it more than ever one of the two main
terminals of the African continent. Along with the deepening of the
Nile channel, and the construction of an enormous dam across the riverthus forming a reservoir of gigantic proportions-a railroad has been
built for many miles up the side of the river, being one section of the
"Cape to Cairo Railroad,"
And notwithstanding the troubles in South Africa, there has been
and there is a distinct form of British expansion going on in Africa,
simultaneously with American expansion in other portions of the globe.
The Anglo-Saxons are destined, apparently, to be the leaders in the
civilization, the enlightenment, the emancipation and the enfranchiseAnd it seems quite probable that
ment of the dark places of the earth
the English language (our common heritage) will ere long be the prevailing language of the historic Nile valley, where Asiatics, Greeks, Romans,
and Arabs once held successive sway through long stretches of time.
The English have established themselves along the Nile by force of arms
under Gordon, Wolseley and Kitchener. The price they paid there is far
lighter than they have had to pay in the conflict forced upon them in
South Africa; but the prospect now is that peace will soon be restored,
and that Great Britain will have the government of both ends of Africa,
and will connect them by lines of communication, railroad and telegraph,
from North to South. Then we look for further developement in the
South as in the North-for the further amelioration of the native tribes

-for the equal rights of all, black and white, Boer and Briton, under a
benign, just and equitable administration of law. We trust too, and
confidentially believe, that England is great enough to be magnanimous
in her reconstruction policy in dealing with a conquered people. It is a
vast problem that is before England to-day in Africa, and we cannot
venture to predict how it will be worked out. But we have confidence
in the Anglo-Saxon, whether Briton or American. The people who have
grappled with the difficult situation of the past, at a tremendous cost of
life and treasure, will work out the problem now before them to the
astonishment of the civilized world.
We too, Americans, descended from the same ancestral stock, of
which we may well be proud, have a great problem before us also. How
to deal with the millions of people in our newly acquired possessionsPorto Rico, the Hawaiian Islands and the Philippines-as also with the
Chinese problem, so as to elevate and enlighten them, and give them
liberty such as they have never thought of-liberty under enlightened
law-this is the problem before our government to-day. God grant to
both England and America the wisdom, the patience, and the perseverence needed to work out and solve, each in his own way, the mighty
problem now before them, even the being and the well-being of millions
of God's creation. Let us with this great work before us, put an end to
all jealousies and unworthy fault-findings, and have no rivalry save the
noble emulation of striving to excel in the working out of the best results
for the good of the people. Long live America! Long live Great
Britain! And may God grant to each His protection and his benediction.
MATTOON, Illinois, April 16, 1902.

N. B.-This article and the one preceding it appeared in The Mattoon
Commercial, April 24, 1902.

Books and Pamphlets by Andrew Gray, D.D.
To be had of the AUTHOR, Mattoon, Ill., or from the PUBLISHER.

Postpaid on receipt of price.
Liberal discount when ordered by the dozen direct from the Author.

1.

Baptism:

2.

The Baptism of Jesus the Christ. 3rd Ed. - 10 cents.

3.

Sunday School Questions,

4.

Apostolical Succession in the English Scottish
and American Church. 3rd Ed.
10 cents.

5.

The Incarnation and Infant Baptism,

6.

Confirmation: Notes and Catechism. 3rd Ed. 10 cents.

Its Nature and Subjects,

-

-

-

-

--

-

10 cents.

10 cents.

-

10 cents.

7.

Why We Keep Sunday.

8.

Methodist Orders Examined; or Modern Methodism
Compared with the Writings of John Wesley.
Price 15 cents. $10.00 per 100.

9.

Modern Roman Claims, Considered in the Light of
Scripture and History and found to be groundless
Assumptions. 57 pp
Price 15 cents.

10.

The Church of England and Henry VIII. False
Assertions Often Repeated fully refuted. Introduction by Bishop Seymour. 58 pp. Price 20
cents. 3rd Ed.

11.

Episcopacy, by Divine Appointment, the polity of the
Anglican . Church.
Introduction by Bishop Seymour. Price 20 cents.
(CONCLUDED ON

-

44 pp.

NEXT

PAE'

GE.)

-

-

10 cents.

Books and Pamphlets by Andrew Gray, D,D.
12.

What a Christian ought to Know and Believe; or the
Church Catechism with notes, Expository and practical; for Sunday Schools and Bible Classes. A
Book for the Times. 8 vo. 82 pp Cloth. Price,
Net, 60 cents.

13.

Episcopacy and the Anglican Church; A series of
questions by a Methodist Minister, with Answers to
the same. Price 10 cents.

14.

The Origin and Early History of Christianity in
Britain. This carefully prepared work, upon which
the author has devoted much time, study, travel
and research, gives the History of the Church from
its earliest days down to the death of Augustine.
About 200 pp.
Crown 8 vo.
Price, beautifully
bound in cloth, $1.00.
Highly recommended.

15.

The Bible and Modern Criticism.
cents.

16.

Hymns of Holy Church.

17.

Popular Cries: "One Church is as Good as Another,"
.and Other Papers. Price 15 cents.

18.

The Ministry in Christ's Church Official, Not Personal.
An Eirenicon. Price 10 cents.

19.

The Church of England, and Her Relation to the
Church of Rome.
Two Lectures.
With Preface
by Bishop Seymour. Price 20 cents.

20.

Historical Associations of the Prayer Book, Etc.
Lectures. Price 20 cents.

60 pp.

Price 20

Price 10 cents.

Two

WHAT EVERY CHRISTIAN OUGHT TO KNOW
AND BELIEVE:
Or, The Church Catechism, With Notes Expository and Practical.
For Sunday Schools and Bible Classes.
A Hook for the Times.

By REV. ANDREW GRAY, D.D,
8 vo, 82 pages; cloth; price, net, 60c.
New

York:

-

-

-

JAMES POTT

&

COMPANY.

(To be had of the Publishersor from the Author, Mattoon, Illinois.)

Here is a work which it would be well for Sunday School teachers and Sunday School scholars to study. It brings out in a clear
and methodical way'the teaching of the Church as embodied in her
Chatechism, and every help to facilitate the right understanding of
this Instruction is calculated to give the Church what she needs, if
not most of all, at least as much as she does anything else, namely,
a sound, solid foundation of living stones in her laity in every generation as it comes and goes.
Without this intelligent comprehension of the fundamental
principles of the Gospel as preserved and applied by the Church on
the part of the laity, there is always great risk that the Church will
suffer in her interests through laxity of belief and erroneous preaching by the ministry of ignorant or misguided clergy. Such a treatise as Mr. Gray has produced is well calculated to serve as an antidote to prevent such an evil or to correct it if it already exists.
What men need to-day more than anything else is a plain,
clear statement of the truths which God has made known to us in
His Holy Word,
He Himself tells us that "the things which are revealed belong
to us and to our children."
These things are substantially gathered together for mankind
by Christ's Church in the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, the Ten Commandments, and the other things contained in the Catechism.
These are the things which a Christian ought to know and believe
to his soul's health.
Dr. Gray has done good service to the cause of sound instruction in positive revealed truth in this valuable work on the Church
Catechism. We commend it, and hope that it will be widely circulated.
GEORGE F. SEYMOUR,
Bishop of Springfield.
BIsnor's HOUSE, SPRINGFIELD, ILL.,

St. Thomas' Day, 1895,

. There is no better book of

"An excellent manual.. .. .
Christian instruction for the young.

.

. Teachers will find this

analysis of the Catechism helpful and suggestive."--The Churchman.
"Here, in a small book of 82 pages, is a well-arranged outline
for instruction in the Catechism, on Confirmation and on the Church.
With this book as a guide, any clergyman might easily comply
with the spirit as well as the letter of the Canon. (Title I. Canon 18, 1)
that requires that the ministers of this Church shall not only be
diligent in instructing the children in the Catechism, but shall
also, by stated Catechetical lectures and instructions, be diligent in
informing the youth and others in the doctrine, constitution, history
and liturgy of the Church. Those who have failed to comply with
the above Canon, we advise to get this book and to try the experiment of its faithful use. Such a course must result in great good
both to priest and people. It would prove, also, an admirable help
in the preparation of candidates for Confirmation."-Living Church.
"This is an expository and practical work on the Church Catechism, and one of the best that we have knowledge of. Every
teacher would find it a help indeed in the instruction of his class
upon the Church Catechism. Such help as that we have now
before us is, or ought to be, welcome. Dr. Gray has admirably
done his part of the work, and the explanations are full, practical
and Churchly. It is impossible to use this admirable exposition
without being benefitted, and without also being prepared to make
the study of the Catechism both intelligible and interesting. We
heartly commend the book, not only to Sunday School teachers, but
to all our readers."--The Church Guardian(Montreal.)
"This manual is intended for the use of clergymen, Sunday
School teachers and superintendents. Its object is, to take the
Catechism as it is and by illustration, explanation and application,
to make its meaning so apparent that it will commend itself to the
hearts and understandings of these who learn it. And for the
It will be a
most part the object may be said to be accomplished.
useful helper to teachers who use it carefully."-Church Eclectic.
"It delights me, from the Title and Dedication to the closing
prayer."-A Sunday School Teacher of twenty-five years experience.
"It seems to me to be quite remarkable in its expository and
analytical power, and really untangles the antiquated phraseology
of the Chatechism and renders its meaning apprehensible more than
any other book I remember to have read."
The HON. ALEXANDER H.

RICE.

Late Governor of Massachusetts.

THE ORIGIN AND EARLY HISTORY OF
,
.
CHRISTIANITY IN BRITAIN.

t

By Andrew Gray, D. D., with preface by the Rt. Rev. George F.
Cr. 8 vo. 182 pp.
Seymour, D.D., LL. D., Bishop of Springfield.
New York; James Pott & Co. Price $1.00 net. Sent postpaid
on receipt of price. ' Address the publishers, or Rev. Andrew
Gray, D. D., Mattoon, Ill.
Note. The MS. of this work. was sent by the S. P. C. K.;. of
London, to their Examining Committee at Oxford, and after examination returned with a flattering commendation.
EXTRACTS FROM PRESS NOTICES.

"Every Anglican should read this book."-The Angelus.
"Dr. Gray has here collected together the scattered evidences
which prove beyond peradventure, as Bishop Seymour says, in-;his
Prefatory Note, that Augustine began his work above ground, while
others had laid the foundations beneath. A most handy=volume for.
popular use."-American Church Almanac.
"Dr. Gray has made this a study for years, and is now recognized:
as an authority in his specialty. He has laid the reading public
under obligation by the publication of a handsome volume.
ing a digest of the large amount of information he has gathered on

.oritain-

this fascinating theme.

.

.

. Every page will be found of great

benefit to searchers after truth."-American Citizen.
"It bears marks of mtich study and pains-taking research.
The Introduction would make an excellent tract on the constitution
of the Catholic Church, and the account of the early missionary work
of the Irish monks is most interesting. . .
. Both Dr. Gray and
Bishop Seymour give Agustine all due honor, and :his work is

certainly history, while much before him is legendary."--Living
Church.
"Dr. Gray has with much care and pains-taking, brought
together a great deal of history, and has made his contribution to
the literature of the thirteenth centennial anniversary of Agustine's
landing a treasury of useful information on the subject of early
Christianity in Britain.

.

.

. The book brings out with a strong

emphasis, the true relation of St. Patrick to Celtic Christianity, and
brings together more interesting facts and illustrations than we
. Dr.
remember to have found before in any one volume. .
Gray explains very clearly how and when Romanism was introduced
into Ireland, a question which a great many people have in mind
and on which they need to be satisfied."-Church Eclectic.
"A scholarly volume appearing in the elegant letter press of the
great house of Skeffington & Son, London."--Somerville Citizen.
"In the main it will be found that the Author's purpose has been
well worked out, and that he has done a grateful office in uncovering
and bringing, iito view the foundations of the history of the Church
of Christ in Britain, and of the Anglican,Communion of the present
day."--GEORGE F. SEYMOUR, Bishop of Springfield.
"Dr. Gray deals with a 'most fascinating chapter of Church
history in his usual way, and gives a most lucid account of the
The
Church history of Britain prior to the landing of Agustine
volume is very attractively bound, and the reasonable price at which
the book is sold, places it within the reach of every student of
ecclesiastical history."-The Weekly Record, (Sussex, N. B.)
"Every effort to popularize the Church's history ought to receive
the most cordial support from every loyal Churchman, and especially
when it is so forcibly and ably presented as in this book before us.
Dr. Gray has been a careful student of history, and has the faculty
of stating facts in a plain and interesting manner. His loyal spirit
and devotion to the cause of the Holy Church is in evidence
throughout these pages, and we can cordially commend them to our
readers."-Church Bells.

"Dr. Gray is a priest of the American Church, Lecturer in Church
History, and an enthusiastic believer in the Apostolical non-Roman
origin of the great Anglican Communion. A prefatory note to this
volume by the Bishop of Springfield, states that its pages constitute
an honest effort 'to keep fresh in memory the self-denying labours
of missionaries before Augustine landed in Kent.' It is more than
ever necessary nowadays to put St. Augustine's mission into its right
relation with the work of other missionaries both before and after
his time, and Dr. Gray has done good service with his attempt in
this direction.

.

.

. He has compiled a deeply interesting account

of our origines, and his work should awaken in his brethren of the
American Church a deeper and wider sense of their splendid inheritance."- The Church Times (London.)
"Dr. Gray has shown a remarkable famaliarity with Church
history.

.

.

. The book is replete with important information in

reference to the early history of the Church, and hence valuable as
a book of reference."-The World's Crisis.
"The contention (that Christianity was taken to Britain at an
early date) is sustained by quotations from a number of scholars
of the first rank through the centuries; and if the point fails of
absolute confirmation, it is so strongly attested as to make it more
than probable.

.

.

. The author shows wide historic research

and conviction of the truth of his interpretation of the evidence.

the

style is easy and exceedingly readable.

.

.

. We are glad to

commend the book to all who would be informed in the beginnings
of the establishment of our faith among our ancestors."--The
Commonwealth (Phila.)
The extracts which follow are taken from a Review of the Book
written by the REV. HENRY BARKER (for over thirty years engaged
in active practice as a Lawyer). In the first sentence of his Review,
he states that he had gone a third time through the Book before
writing it.
"The Introduction is a clear statement about the Church as a
visible Society on its Divine Apostolic and historic basis."

Chap. I. "I regard this as a very valuable chapter, and with
Bishop Seymour would say that on the whole, the conclusions sought
to be established are 'well worked out.' The reliance on Roman
Catholic writers and historic Councils, etc., is very striking, and
should serve to dispel in great measure the accusation of hazy
traditionalism."
"This whole chapter is interesting and vaJuable, and I think the
Author gives a far more historical basis to the early establishment
of Christianity in Britain and to the presence and labors of Joseph
of Aramatheea and of Aristobulus than I have seen collected in one
view before--and that he gives great appearance of reality to the
ancient stories about Avalon and Glastonbury. We may well believe
in the historic presence of Joseph of Aramathaea without being
committed to the Christmas Thorn and other matters of mere legend.
The impression made on my own mind by this chapter is very strong.
I cannot disregard the cumulation of the Author's Preferences and
proofs and their aggregate effect. As to the personal presence of
St. Paul, I am not yet convinced--though I cannot deny it... The
later information as to the members of the family of Pudens and
Claudia, is very interesting and reflects veracity on what precedes it."
Chap. II.
"I regard as a valuable
Church History in Britain."

contribution. to

ancient

Chap. III. "Here we have another valuable chapter containing much historical information in a convenient form for reference."
Chap. IV. "I see nothing to criticise in this chapter .
.
I have no fault whatever to find with the- conclusions of the Author."
"I wish to say that as a Student and Quondam Lecturer and
Speaker, on Early English Church History, I owe' a considerable
personal debt to Dr. Gray for his valuable and honest work which I
value highly and shall use freely. He makes the evidence for the
Early British Church by its collection and aggregation very strong."

This book is a preservation facsimile produced for
the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
It is made in compliance with copyright law
and produced on acid-free archival
60# book weight paper
which meets the requirements of
ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992 (permanence of paper).
Preservation facsimile printing and binding
by
Northern Micrographics
Brookhaven Bindery
La Crosse, Wisconsin
2012