1
10
1
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/63f1bc1ace41b6832dba0601d6fe58f8.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=cBHSzv-ihimhzUAH7MwprdXTQT3AA7MubxJfpDSG-5BS9aKhszp%7EGeUQmVP3vXOdR3zjROs-bcS-OXpC5fjRk4-5NJqbuDcK-8RVz3OOVVc73EjhIuw8ajUMud4JBusv9gmOe6dcQ7gZWchqFDGeD28yZt9tEBQiVaMv4LjLBsCeIsTHO3%7EeYfOspbDjq0ceNeu3NB8ySGiGmWedrGuAoC3N9Z7EuSkvz7xicQuYtszKP83WE93oGWiuxNCuAutF43LxOrObFLBp4vJBiTNLKnYMhC9C2xIpj3x7PWKAr3GE3sCZfY-a%7EOKtMVr743FY9orVFQ0wtZToRJoXdrrOFg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
181dc6fdd2c1ba8b121292d7f23e5a13
PDF Text
Text
SOUTH AFRICAN WAR
“LEST WE FORGET."
If I justify myself, mine own mouth shall
condemn me,—Job> ix, 20.
r
LONDON:
“ NEW AGE ” OFFICE, 1 & 2 TOOK’S COURT, E.C.
1905.
PRICE TWOPENCE.
��C4-
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
THE CHURCHES AND THE SOUTH
AFRICAN WAR.
44 LEST WE FORGET/*
If I justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me.—
Job, ix, 20.
It is desirable to say something in explanation of the
origin of this collection.
In the correspondence
columns of the “ Times ” the question had been raised
whether it is right to discuss political questions in Non
conformist chapels. In the “ Times ” of July 26, 1905,
appeared a letter from the Rev. Silvester Horne, con
taining this passage : “At the time of the Boer war
the pulpits of the Established Church rang with en
thusiastic panegyrics on that appalling and disastrous
policy.’’
In reply to this statement, Mr. Horsfall, of
Swanscoe Park, near Macclesfield, wrote, in a letter
printed in the “ Times ’’ of August 8 : “ Now what are
the facts ?
I am probably in touch with more clergy
men of the Church of England than is Mr. Horne, and
1 do not know a single clergyman who uttered ‘ enthu
siastic panegyrics ’ on the war, or on the course of
political action which preceded the war, and I do not
believe that Mr. Horne can give us the name of a single
clergyman who uttered any panegyrics of the kind.’’
This statement, preceded by the question : “ What
are the facts?’’ shows an ignorance or forgetfulness
simply astonishing. Mr. Horsfall is believed to be a
prominent churchman.
If he could entertain this
belief, a similar delusion is probably widespread. In
fact, Mr. Horsfall’s contention was supported by the
“ Church Times ’’ (Sept. 29).
It was evidently a
matter of public interest that the attitude of the clergy
on the subject should be recalled.
Accordingly, in
the “ New Age,’’ four articles were published (Septem-
�(
2
)
ber 21, 28, October 5, 12) under the heading “ Thou
Canst Not Say I Did It,” quoting passages from ser
mons, books, addresses, etc., of clergymen of the
Established Church. And not only of these.
In the
“ Times ” of September 29 Dr. John Hunter, of Glas
gow, intervened in the discussion on “ Christianity and
Politics.” He admitted that if sermons, prayers, and
speeches of Nonconformists could be unearthed they
would be found to contain panegyrics quite as enthu
siastic as those uttered by clergymen of the Established
Church. Dr. Hunter, indeed, expressed the view that,
It is a pity to recall what is best forgotten ”—a view
which, for reasons to be shown, cannot be admitted—
“ but,” he continued, “ but let us hear both sides if
we are to hear one side.”
The demand is obviously
fair. Accordingly, in the articles above-mentioned, all
religious denominations were treated equally.
In answer to numerous requests, proving the deep
interest taken in the question, it was determined to
reprint the articles.
The matter has been recast, and
many passages have been added.
Acknowledgments
of assistance rendered are due to several correspondents
of the “ New Age.” In particular, the assistance and
co-operation of Mr. J. S. Trotter are gratefully acknow
ledged.
It must be understood that the present collection
gives merely samples of the clerical utterances of the
time. For one thing, ministers of religion in South
Africa are not represented here. It suffices to recall
the fact that Mr. Chamberlain placed them in the very
front rank of his supporters : “ Who has influenced her
Majesty’s Government? .... In the first rank I put the
ministers of religion in South Africa................ These
gentlemen, whose profession inclined them to peace, to
whatever denomination they belong, and whether they
are British or American—all their organisations, and
almost without exception all their ministers, are heartily
on our side ” (at Birmingham, May 11, igoo).
The
statement was warranted.
It was said above that it is not possible to admit
Dr. Hunter’s view that the attitude of the Churches
on the question is ‘‘best forgotten.”
Of the men
whose utterances are here recorded, many openly claim
to be divinely commissioned to reveal the ways of God
to man. Those whose pretentions are humbler, at least
�(
.3
)
claim to speak with a certain authority as elected by
their fellows to the duty of teaching, of exhorting to
righteousness, of warning to avoid evil. All are pro
fessed followers of the Prince of Peace. It is therefore
of the greatest importance to remember how these
teachers bore themselves in a great national crisis. In
1853, John Bright said : “ They will say, Were there
no churches in 1853? Were there no chapels? Were
there no ministers of the Gospel of Peace? What were
these men doing all the time?”
John Bright com
plained in 1853 of the inaction of the clergy. Had he
lived till to-day he would have complained, not that the
clergy were inactive, but that in support of an infamous
war by far the greater number threw themselves with
zeal on the side of its makers. Not only was there no
condemnation of the barbarous methods of conducting
the war, but glowing eulogies were published of the
Concentration Camps in which perished fifteen thou
sand children and some thousands of women.
Some of those who panegyrised the war and the
methods of the war are unrepentant ; they still glory in
their shame. Others, it would seem, are terrified by
the wrecking alike of England and South Africa, by the
crowds of unemployed in the one, the hordes of Chinese
slaves in the other. They hope that we may forget.
They figure on Peace Societies : they preach sermons
in praise of Peace.
Some even go so far as to
denounce the war they once eulogised.
It is for us
to remember.
Ten, twenty, thirty
years hence
an occasion may arise in which we or our chil
dren will have to
choose between
Peace or
War.
Then let us remember the attitude of the
churches ; how, instead of preaching peace, they ex
hausted their oratory in inflaming the passions of the
people. Let us remember the lessons of the past and
be warned by them.
Alfred Marks
November, 1905.
�<
4
)
The Established Church.
Within the limits of this island alone on every Sabbath
20,000—yes, far more than 20,000—temples are thrown open
in which devout men and women assemble that they may
worship Him who is the Prince of Peace. Is this a reality ?
Or is your Christianity a romance ?—John Bright.
In the form of prayer recommended by the Arch
bishops of Canterbury and York, the justice of the war
was assumed : —
Let Thy protecting care be over those who have now gone
forth to fight the battles of their country for the deliverance
of the oppressed and for the maintenance of justice and
equity between man and man.
Note the words “ justice and equity between man and
man.” They became, as we shall see, the catch-words
of the panegyrists of the war.
Our troops had shown already what Englishmen were like.
They had upheld the honour of England as no armies had
ever surpassed them in doing.—Archbishop of Canterbury,
Jan. 7, 1900. (“ Times,” Jan. 8, 1900.)
Neither need we doubt the justice of our cause, nor the
beneficial results which our victory would bring, even to the
Very people with whom we are now at war.—Archbishop of
York. (“ Times,” February 19, 1900.)
After a reference to the Boer proclamations of ‘‘ Days
of thanksgiving and humiliation ” : —
As yet there have been no such days in England. It may
be that our heavenly Father is only waiting to be gracious.
.... If without hypocrisy we had long ago taken a similar
course, it might have fared better with us than it has done.—
Pastoral Letter of the Archbishop of York, October, 1901.
Of the greatness of our mission in South Africa, one need
have no doubt, and if the English race was to fulfil its des
tiny that it must be able to throw back its shoulders and
breathe the air of freedom was surely an incontrovertible
proposition..................One thing stood out clearly and nobly—
the patience, the Christian patience, with which our Govern
ment had been of late striving after peace when the blunder
ing Boers had done so much to provoke them.............. It
seemed as if not a stone were left unturned under which the
key to an honourable peace might lie.—Bishop of Bath and
Wells, at Diocesan Conference. (“Times,” October 6, 1899.)
‘‘The patience, the Christian patience,” with which
Mr. Chamberlain strove after peace! “ If I had read
these Blue-books,” said the eminent Tory lawyer, Sir
�(
5
)
Edward Clarke, “ not knowing" the persons concerned
in the matter, I confess that I should have been forced
to the conclusion that the correspondence was conducted not with a view to peace.” (October 19, 1899.)
The Bishop of Chester took part in the presentation
of the South African medal to the two Cheshire com
panies of Imperial volunteers, September 7, 1901.
The glorification by this prelate of the Concentration
Camps, in which more than 15,000 children perished, is
mentioned under “ The Massacre of the Innocents.”
A corrupt and tyrannous oligarchy that had for long been
secretly preparing for war with money wrung from the Uitlanders can no longer be permitted to treat our fellow-country
men with cruel injustice, in spite of all that patient diplomacy
in the present could achieve, or former treaties could secure ;
and in the sacred names of justice, liberty, and humanity
England had been compelled, though with much reluctance,
to submit the questions in dispute to the stern arbitrament
°f war............. And at whatever cost in blood and treasure
England would now see that justice was done. There would
be no faltering, no hesitation, no drawing back.—Bishop of
Chichester, at Diocesan Conference, November 7, 1800.
(“ Times,” November 8, 1899.)
He believed from the bottom of his heart that the war was
not only an inevitable war, but a just war and a righteous .
war. It was a war of light against darkness, a war of liberty
against injustice: the only means, it seemed, whereby true
peace and real liberty and perfect justice might be secured
in that country for the future.— Bishop of Chichester,
December 10, 1899.
In his view the war in South Africa was distinctly a war of
defence against aggression, a war of resistance to injustice and
cruelty, not for conquest and dominion. It had been forced
upon us, all unwilling to undertake it, by the mad ambitions
of a small but tyrannous oligarchy, which had induced a mis
taken people to fight............ A war which had for long been
preparing against us in silence and treacherv with the avowed
object of sweeping every British subject from'South Africa. . . .
He was personally deeply persuaded of the paramount neces
sity and the entire justice of the war.—Bishop of Chichester.
(“ Times,” January 9, 1900.)
As we shall hear more of this “ avowed object,” we
will here quote the words of Dr. G. M. Theal, the his
toriographer of the Cape Government for over forty
years, a man who has a complete knowledge of South
Africa. In an interview published in the ” Manchester
Guardian ” he said : “I say to you on my word of
honour that I am as sure as I am sitting here that
�(
6
)
the design to oust the English from South Africa and
set up a great Dutch Republic, no more entered the
minds of men like Kruger, Steyn, Reitz, and Joubert
than it has occurred to Premier Laurier to oust the
United States from the American Continent, and make
of all North America a great Canadian Dominion.”
But what power the war has brought! The British soldier
has risen greatly in the estimation, not only of England, but
of the world............. It has knit together England and her
many sons in a bond of love and common interest which shall
never be divided. It has shown that she possesses great and
unexpected reserves............... It has bound up classes and
obliterated distinctions here at home........... Knees have bent
before God in an attitude to which they have long been
strange.—Bishop of Chichester, October i, 1901.
Preaching to the 3rd Essex Volunteers on January
11, 1900, the Bishop of Colchester said : —
We were knitted together as one man with one purpose,
because we believed it was God’s cause, and not only the cause
of the Queen.
When we had obtained the blessing of stable peace in
regions now desolated by war, we should be able to show in
what spirit we resisted at all costs the attack on our suprem
acy, by striving to bring to all who would be under our
dominion—Englishman, Boer, or Kaffir—the ennobling privi. leges of the true freedom which was born of truth.—Bishop
■ ;of Durham. (“ Times,” November 16, 1900.)
The Bishop of Durham addressed a message to the
Company of Durham Artillery which was going to
South Africa. The message was read on parade. The
Bishop said : —
A great crisis had revealed the Empire to itself. They felt
from one end of the world to the other as they had never felt
before, that they were one people charged with a great mis
sion, and united by a history which was our inspiration to
noble deeds. All minor differences of class and opinion were
lost in the universal desire to fill Imperial obligations accord
ing to their opportunities, and to preserve unimpaired for
the next generation the inheritance which they themselves had
received. (“ Times,” March 24, 1900.)
From “ The Obligations of Empire,” by the Bishop
h of Durham, published in 1900 : —
It is not only our paramount authority in South Africa
which is at stake, but as involved in that our dominion in
India, and our fitness to inspire and guide the life of Greater
Britain. We have to show that we are still worthy to hold,
both by might and by counsel, the Empire which has been
�(
7
)
entrusted to us, to protect those who rightly look to us for
help, and to bear patiently the thankless burden of the white
man, and train uncivilised races to a nobler life.
He looked upon the present war as waged by an English
army as a great effort and a distressing necessity for right
eousness and peace.—Bishop of Durham, at a presentation
of war medals, November 23, 1901.
The war in South Africa had shown at least this much
already—that the manhood of our country had not been
destroyed by the luxury which had long prevailed amongst us,
that all classes, rich or poor, were ready to unite for the de
fence of the Empire............ It had knit together the hearts
of Englishmen throughout the world.—Bishop of Ely, at Ely
Diocesan Conference, June, 1901.
We are at war with men with whom we would fain be at
peace............ Her Majesty’s Government believe the war to
be necessary in the cause of justice and equity, and the nation
believes it.—Bishop of Lichfield, at Diocesan Conference,
November 2, 1899. (“ Times,” November 3, 1899.)
Even if we were brought to a condition of wanting real
help, it might be a means of joining the Colonies one to
another, and with the mother country................. In plainer
words, it would make a more united Empire than it had yet
been. God in His ways might be working that, and he hoped
and trusted it would prepare the way for the missionaries to
spread the Gospel all round about in Africa.—Bishop of Lin
coln. (“ Times,” January 9, 1900.)
Did St. Augustine need to have the way cleared for
him by the legions of Rome?
In Africa the sad realities of war had been experienced
even when freed by Christian influence from barbaric atrocity
and redeemed by the heroic and Christian conduct of indi
vidual men.—Bishop of Lincoln. (“Times,” October 10,
)
1900.
The Bishop of Lincoln, preaching in Spalding Parish
Church to a crowded congregation, said
that it seemed according to all human probability that
peace could not be very far off. It seemed as though the hand
of God had been with them and given them the victory.........
They might hope that there would be some great cathedral
church built at Cape Town to represent the great things
which God had done for the English nation. There ought to
be some visible object, witnessing the acknowledgment of
England that what had been done was not in their own
strength, but under the hand of God. (“Times,” May 7,
1901.)
H
�(
8
)
“Not in their own strength.’’
But their own
strength was very considerably taxed before the 50,000
farmers were subjugated. We sent out 448,876 offi
cers and men, not including 50,000 armed natives and
hordes of Bechuanas hired to burn and devastate. The
Colonies, called on to come and save their old mother,
sent their corner boys and larrikins in response.
And
wTho can say how many millions were squandered, to
the enrichment of contractors and the impoverishment
of the country ?
The Swiss Branch of the Evangelical Alliance issued
what the “ Times ” calls a “ pro-Boer appeal to ‘ the
Christians of Great Britain
In reply to that appeal
the Bishop of Liverpool addressed a letter to the
Branch, printed in the “ Record ’’ of August 23, igoi :
We did not seek the war. It was forced upon us by men
who, whatever may have been their pretext, really aimed, as
is now beyond doubt, at the overthrow of British power in
South Africa, and the setting up of a South African Republic.
We have not conducted the war unrighteously and cruelly.
.... The exigencies of war will always require the burning
of farms, and even of villages, which are used by the enemy
to harass the opposing army, and to harbour combatants and
ammunition. Terrible as the farm-burning has been, it was
only ordered when absolutely necessary by a British general
whose character for humanity and godliness is beyond dis
pute.
The Boer women and children were crowded into camps
because they could not be kept alive in any other way............
No doubt they have suffered hardships, but so have our own
soldiers and civilians. No doubt the death-rate in the con
centration camps has been lamentably high, especially among
children, but so has it been in our own camps amongst strong
and seasoned men............
,
The great mass of Evangelical Christians in Great Britain
p of all shades of political opinion, support, and will continue
to support, the policy of their Government, because it in
volves the integrity of the British Empire, the complete civiq
lisation of South Africa, and the evangelisation of the native
races.
The Bishop of Liverpool, writing a month later : —
I see no reason whatever to modify any of the statements
which I have made in reply to the Swiss pastors. I do not
think that the Proclamation of Lord Kitchener [calling on the
Boers to surrender by September 15] is contrary to the usages
of civilised warfare; nor do I see how it is possible for Great
Britain to accept arbitration in South Africa. (“Tinies,”
September 25, 1901.)
�(
9
)
On this letter Field-Marshal Sir Neville Chamberlain
wrote, on August 26, 1901 : “ What must have been
the distress and dismay of the simple Swiss Protestant
ministers to discover that a prelate of the Church of
England could view as unavoidable the horrors that had
already devastated, and are still devastating, the two
Boer States? Never before has anything approaching
to such wholesale and reckless destruction or abduction
of families been enacted by a British army ” (“Man
chester Guardian
Notwithstanding, the Bishop
saw “ no reason whatever ’’ to modify any of his state
ments.
. We may just observe, parenthetically, that the Coun
cil of the British Organisation of the Evangelical Alli
ance “ would refer to the recent letter of the Bishop of
Liverpool as, in the main, giving utterance to their
own views in the matter.” (“ Times,” September 30,
1901. )
The Bishop of London, preaching to C.I.V.’s,
January 19, 1900 : —
You go for your fathers who begat you, whose work you
cannot refuse to carry on. You go for your children, who are
to come after you that you may hand down to them England’s
honour untarnished during the brief period in which it was
committed to your trust.
It was not now worth asking why or how the war had come
about. The only thing before them was to do their country’s
duty in the hour of their country’s need.—Bishop of London. V
(“ Times,” June 25, 1900.)
It is difficult to say whether the following gem was
meant to be taken seriously.
The second sentence
seems to sparkle with a delicate irony : —
No nation, however rich, can even financially go on spend
ing so many millions a month in war without suffering at last;
and of the drain on our resources money was the least. It is
true, and we must never forget it, that we have received in //
this war priceless lessons; we have received a unique ex
perience of warfare under most difficult conditions.—Bishop
of London’s Thanksgiving Sermon, at St. Paul’s, June 8,
1902.
The cause for which they were to fight was a righteous
one............. The righteousness of the cause should deter
mine them so to behave in the face of the enemy that not
one jewel should be torn from the forehead of our beloved
�(
IO
)
Queen.—The Bishop of Marlborough.
C.I.V.’s, January 31, 1900.)
(Address to the
1 he cloud of almost inevitable war was now hanging over
the nation. They had striven and prayed for peace, it seemed,
in vain. The admirable patience of the Government had
stretched forbearance almost beyond the bounds of national
self-respect.
Now it appeared that only one thing, war
was rapidly approaching, and that soon from thousands of
British and colonial homes there would go forth the flower of
the nation’s youth to fight their battle and win for their
fellow-countrymen in the Transvaal the rights and liberties
of equal citizenship.—Bishop of Peterborough, at the Peter
borough Diocesan Conference. (“Times,” October 5, 1899.)
We believe that every great race had a mission to fulfil in
the world, and England had the lessons of Magna Charta
and of religious toleration to give, and freedom and equal
rights wherever the English flag floated, to every man, no
matter to what race he belonged.—Bishop of Ripon. (“Times,”
January 15, 1900.)
On January 2, 1901, the Bishop of Rochester took a
leading part in welcoming the return from South Africa
of Lord Cranborne.
We feel the moral strain. We hate the position of a big
power treading down a little one. The role of putting down
independence is as unwelcome to us as it is uncongenial to
our traditions. We are not reconciled to it, even though
independence has in this case associated itself with Krugerism, conniption, unsleeping and bitter animosity, and enor
mous military outlay: or though we know that we are fighting
for the prevalence of a higher civilisation over the lower.—
Bishop of Rochester, September 17, 1901, in a letter to the
Editor of “ Die Christliche Welt,” of Marburg.
The immense preponderance of reasonable responsible
opinion had steadily recognised that, once begun, the war
must be persisted with steadily to a decisive issue.—Bishop
of Rochester, at a Diocesan Conference, November 6, 1901.
It must, however, be remembered to the credit of the
Bishop of Rochester that on one occasion he was dis
tinctly in advance of his clergy. Alarmed by the fright
ful mortality in the Concentration Camps, he wrote to
Mr. Brodrick, and at the Diocesan Conference in No
vember, 1901, approved a resolution referring to “the
terrible result of military measures.’’ And this is how
he was met : The Rev. W. H. Longsdon thought that
in view of the mortality statistics in some parts of Lon
�don, it was unnecessary to criticise the Concentration
Camps in South Africa.
Canon Pollock said he could have wished that the
resolution had embodied an expression of the feeling
that it rested very much more with the Boers than with
us to terminate the present state of things.
(Hear,
hear.) (“Times,” November 8, igoi.)
It is a war which, in my opinion, has been forced upon us ;
we would gladly have remained at peace........... We do right
to ask God to bless our cause, believing it to be a just and
righteous cause.—Bishop of St. Albans, at Diocesan Confer
ence, October 25, 1899. (“Times,” October 27, 1899.)
England holds too great responsibilities in South Africa to
abdicate her position, on which rest not only the present
engagements under which alone Englishmen can live there,
but the whole future conditions of South African united civi
lisation. War to overthrow that position has been preparing
only too many years, and the grievances under which our
countrymen have been more and more oppressively and con
temptuously refused the equal rights which were the essence
of the convention under which the Republic exists, have meant
the war so long preparing. We may have waited too long;
we have certainly not been hasty.—Bishop of Southwell, at
Diocesan Conference at Nottingham. (“ Times,” October 25,
1899-)
Pray for a righteous issue—yes ; but not as in doubt if we
are assured of our cause, nor in pretence, but pray sincerely
for blessing and success in what we feel righteous.-—Bishop
of Southwell. (“ Times,” January 9, 1900.)
The glorious thought about it was that we thereby helped
on the will of God. Just as by sowing and reaping we ob
tained His gift of bread, just as by study and reading we ac
quired His gift of knowledge, so by praying and fighting we
showed that our prayers were in earnest, and that we believed
we were spreading His gracious gift of good government
throughout the world............. The supremacy of the Boers
meant the inferiority of every other race; our supremacy
had been used, and would be used, to secure equality for the
white races and justice to the black races.—Bishop of Step
ney at St. Paul’s, February n, 1900.
Dr. Gott, Bishop of Truro, in his Twentieth Century
Address, said : —
God has added to this Empire a diamond-field, a land
whose harvest is pure gold, or whose rich mines were of ruby,
rocks of opal : these sounded like phrases, but our colonists
�(
I knew they were facts.
'"November i, 1901.)
12
)
(Quoted in the “Herald of Peace,”
He had heard it said within the last few days that the spirit
stalking abroad in England was an un-Christian spirit of
pride, anger, and revenge. To his eyes it seemed quite other
wise.......... Who that had had large opportunity of observing
the really prevalent tone and temper, but had marvelled—
almost awe-struck—at the deepened sense of the greatness
and beauty of life’s true issues? — Bishop of Winchester,
February 11, 1900.
Preaching at Blackburn on December 25, 1901,
Bishop Thornton [Assistant Bishop to the Bishop of
Manchester] said
He had been requested to speak on the wickedness of the
war, and their duty to stop it. The wickedness of continuing
the war he freely admitted, and in the cry to stop it he heartily
joined, but that appeal must be addressed to a certain old
man in Holland. What were the Boers now fighting for? It
could not be for the restoration of the so-called Republics—
that was impossible—nor for liberty, because free self-gov
ernment was already assured. Their only motive—one most
potent with men and wild beasts—was hate. Hate it was that
kept these motley commandos in the field, shedding the blood
of our best and noblest. If the Boers wished for peace they
could have it, but if they contemptuously refused generous
terms there was only one way to peace, and that a hideous
one—suppression. (“ Times,” December 26, 1901.)
“ Suppression ” cannot here refer to the overthrow
of the Boer Governments ; they were already over
thrown, and to restore them was “ impossible.”
Sup
pression ” meant extermination.
One hundred and
twenty-three years before this time a protest of 31 Bri
tish peers declared that ” Those objects of war that
cannot be compassed by fair and honourable hostility,
ought not to be compassed at all ; an end that has no
means but such as are unlawful is an unlawful end.”
Some of the awful facts about the Concentration Camps
were known through the publication of a Blue-book ;
among other facts, that the death rate in the Camps
was so high that school benches had to be used for
making coffins.
And with such facts before him a
Christian Bishop could talk of “ suppression ” !
Two Colonial Bishops bring up the rear : —
As a nation we entered upon the undertaking with a sense
of responsibility resting on us, not in any spirit of aggression.
�(
i3
)
We had been taught, and he believed rightly, that the in
terests of South Africa demanded the action. The British
nation had its faults, but it had its virtues also, and it was a
matter for thankfulness that wherever the British flag was
flying there was liberty, security to life and property, and
administration of justice.— Bishop Tugwell, November i,
1899.
May I be permitted through your valuable columns to
sound the bugle, and call the people once again to prayer?
We cannot forget Septuagesima Sunday of last year,
which was set apart for prayer at the beginning of the present
war in South Africa, and how it was immediately followed by
the relief of Kimberley, the defeat and capture of Cronje and
his army, the relief of Ladysmith, and the capture and occu
pation of Bloemfontein.
Can it be that we have ceased to pray, seeing that we are
not yet able to bring the war to an end ?
We have faith in the justice of our cause ; then let us to
the Lord our God, Who waiteth to be gracious, yet will be
inquired of, as in the days of old, to do it for us.—Bishop of
Sierra Leone, in “Times,” September 24, 1901.
We come now to clergymen below the episcopal
rank.
Dean Farrar, preaching at Canterbury Cathedral on
November 5, 1899, said that :—Just as every good and great man was sure to be at all
times the butt of slander and of malice, so England, who in
her relations with all classes of men, desired only to be just
and generous, stood to-day amid the jealousy of the nations
and the hubbub of lies. We had need for righteous deter
mination and for ardent watchfulness. The Dean went on
to consider the questions : Is war justifiable ? and Is the present
war just and right? To both questions he answered an un
hesitating “Yes.” (“Times,” November 6, 1899.)
It is easy for those who hold that war is anti-Christian to
draw frightful pictures of the miseries which all war must
necessarily involve............ They ask whether the Saviour of
the world permits His followers, under any circumstances,
to shoot each other down by tens of thousands, by way of
“ relieving the oppressed and maintaining the cause of jus
tice and equity between man and man ?”.... zThere are
whole books of the Old Testament which ring with the clash of
conflict............. Nor is it otherwise in the New Testament.
. . . . Our Lord never forbade war^/from which he some
times took His metaphors. He said : “ When a strong man
armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace.”r-Dean
Farrar, in the “ North American Review,” September, 1900.
1
,
j
(
�(
i4
)
We were fighting for truth and justice, not for revenge, and
when the end of the war came there would be no thought of
vengeance or punishment. The vanquished would be asked
to consent to live as Englishmen, free as they are, under the
same laws, the same Queen, enjoying the same rights—one
nation, one people.—Dean of ' Gloucester.
(“Times,”
January 9, 1900.)
The following is a quotation from a sermon preached
on the text, “ For my sword shall be bathed in
heaven,” Isaiah xxxiv, 5 : —
He called the struggle righteous, for it was to right the
wrong done by a people who had deliberately set themselves
to play the part of tyrants, who had opposed all real Christian
projects, w’hose one aim was to advance the selfish, narrow
ends of a few, and whose rule was not only oppressive and un
just to the Englishmen who dwelt among them, but also to
the untutored natives of the land. England in her great
world-work needed neither land nor gold ; wealth she gave
rather than received. Free herself, she wished freedom to be
the heritage of every people upon earth.......... Then, was not
the preacher justified—amply justified—when, in invoking
the blessing of the Most High upon the arms of England in
this war, he dared to use the magnificent imagery of the
Hebrew prophet, and to speak of the sword of England as
being “ bathed in Heaven ” ?— Dean of Gloucester, in
Gloucester Cathedral, February n, 1900.
This war being, as we believe, for a righteous cause.—
Archdeacon of Ripon. (“Times,” December 27, 1899.)
On November 5, 1899, the Archdeacon of London
preached at St. Paul’s from the text,
“ Ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars; see that ye be
not troubled, for all these things must come to pass.” It was
disappointing for the British nation to find itself at war so
soon after the Peace Conference ; but it was quite possible
even for the most peace-loving people to be placed in circum
stances where war was inevitable............ It was not the duty of
a preacher to investigate the causes of such things, but to
draw lessons from existing facts. It might be laid down that
the British have no desire for either war or conquest; the suf
ferings of the one, and the responsibilities of the other had
from time to time been forced upon them.—(“Times,” Novem
ber 6, 1899.)
The war had brought out many lessons, and had shown the
bitterness and hatred with which, most unhappily, our nation
was now regarded by all but one of the greater nations of the
Continent. The combined effect of all these things had been
to enhance the sense of national Imperial unity beyond all
�(
*5
)
that went before it, and the result had been seen in the re
turn of the Government which had carried the war through—
although the country had not been slow to find fault with it—
by an immense and increased majority and by a markedly
large number of votes.— Canon Mason, at Westminster
Abbey, October 14, 1900.
Which was the “ one of the greater nations of the
Continent ” ? Turkey ? We know that the Sultan was
honoured by an autograph letter from the Queen, and
that the fleet illuminated at Constantinople on his birth
day.
We knew how the present war had been forced on this
country: how the British Government had striven almost
beyond the bounds of prudence to stave off the appeal to
the sword. We knew to-day, if we ever doubted it, that war
was inevitable. This, if any, was a war waged in the eternal
interests of justice and truth, for the promotion of the wel
fare of thousands, including the welfare of those now un
happily pitted against us............. There could be no more
solemn moment than when a nation unsheathed its sword and
struck a blow at the tyrant, the oppressor, and the murderer,
hurling with all the power of Empire its armed hosts against
the enemy, and cried, with the confidence bred of serious
ness, and the bravery that came of the consciousness of a
good cause. “ God defend the right!” He unhesitatingly said
that war had its blessings as well as its horrors.—Canon Newbolt, before the Lord Mayor, December 6, 1899.
We all know the horrors of war, or, at least, we can imagine
them; they are striking and obvious. But I venture to say,
even on the lowest ground, they are out-balanced by the
horrors of voluptuous peace............. We .... must let the
beauty of war, its heroism, and its wonderful virtues, balance
the pain and horror.— Canon Newbolt, “Endurance: a
Message from the War,” a Sermon preached in St. Paul’s,
December 17, 1899. (“Church Times,” December 22, 1899.)
One is forced to ask whether the beauty of war and
its wonderful virtues would have been so obvious to
Canon Newbolt if his house had been burnt over his
head, he himself sent to a distant land as a prisoner
of war, while those dearest to him were sent to rot in a
Concentration Camp?
Is not the present check to our arms making manifest high
works of God, giving scope, as it does, for a wonderful ex
hibition of patriotism, of national strength, of brotherhood
between class and class, of liberality, of self-sacrifice, of
sympathy, such as would not otherwise have been elicited?—
Canon Argles. (“ Times,” December 25, 1899.)
�(
i6
)
The Boer is a cunning, deceitful, treacherous foe............
When the devil and his angels fought as rebels against
God, and prevailed not, because Michael, the archangel, and
the heavenly hosts fought with the prevailing power of God,
and cast out these evil hosts, they found a place where they
could carry on what we may almost compare to the guerilla
warfare in South Africa. They came to earth to carry on
that incessant system of ambushes and surprises, the cunning
and deceit of which are accompaniments of this very poor
class of warfare now going on in South Africa—you can
hardly dignify it with the name of true and straightforward
fighting. It is just that which constitutes danger to us all.
Our foes are not straightforward : they do not show them
selves in their true colours : they are always lying in wait,
in ambush unseen, and we fancy their power is not what it
is.—Canon Bartram, Vicar of St. Mary’s, Dover. (“Dover
Standard,” March 18, 1901.)
As to the negotiations which preceded the war : —
It seemed to him that if ever a war was legitimate and just,
then this war was both. We went into the war with heavy
hearts: we clutched with almost irrational eagerness at every
chance of making peace.
These words were spoken by Canon Henson in a ser
mon preached at St. Margaret’s, Westminster, on June
8, 1902, long after Sir Edward Clarke’s cross-examina
tion of Mr. Chamberlain in the House of Commons.
(October 19, 1899.)
In this war, now happily ended, there was raised, as men
everywhere now confess, at least outside the coteries of unteachable political partnership, the gravest possible issue.
The Imperial mission of Great Britain was endangered...........
To my thinking, this Imperial mission represents a Divine
vocation.—Canon Henson, June 8, 1902. (“ Christian World
Pulpit.”)
Canon Knox Little published early in July, 1899, a
book, “ Sketches and Studies in South Africa,” dedi
cated to Cecil Rhodes, company-monger, chiefly re
sponsible for the Chartered Company, the most colossal
swindle of the nineteenth century. The tone of this
book may be inferred from the following extract from
a review in the “ Daily Telegraph,” a shining organ of
the new Imperialism :—” Canon Knox Little has the
lowest opinion of the Boers and all their ways. Indeed,
if he were not well known as a serious student of poli
tics, as well as a distinguished Churchman, the un
informed who read his book would almost be driven to
�(
T7
)
the opinion that it is the work of a violent partisan.”
It will suffice to quote one sentence of this book : —
There is something saddening in the notion that English
statesmen should waste the courtesies of diplomacy on the
Transvaal Government.
From the same oracle :—
I fear the thing [a day of humiliation and prayer] would not
be real, and, therefore, would be powerless towards God; and
towards man it would give the impression that we are ashamed
of one of the most righteous wars—as most of us believe—ever
waged.—Canon Knox Little, in “ Times,’’ December 22, 1899.
We must have a high moral principle that right is right,
and wrong is wrong : that a great empire has great responsi
bilities, and that that empire, in fulfilling its responsibilities,
may be dragged or driven, in spite of its desire, as we have
been dragged and driven by our enemies into this war. When
an empire is so dragged or driven it must stand by its colours,
manly and true, serious and in earnest. They must have no
lowering of the moral tone, no sentiment masquerading as
principle, no cant masquerading as religion, but they must
fight for what is right and true, and carry the flag of free
dom wherever the great Empire of which God had made them
part, extended her bounds.—Canon Knox Little, at Kidder
minster, December 1, 1901.
Canon Knox Little’s eulogy of the Concentration
Camps will be found under the head “ The Massacre of
the Innocents.”
We fought that we might defend and preserve the high
interests which the God of nations and of Christendom had
committed to the keeping of our country.—Rev. Dr. Llewellyn
Davies, September 26, 1900.
Towards the end of 1900, Dr. Powell, Vicar of St.
Paul’s, Maidstone, gave an address on the war.
In
this he said : “ Our position was very much like that
which Joshua took up, ‘As Captain of the host of the
Lord am I now come ’.” A Union Jack, ‘‘ which had
waved over more than one bloody fight,” was exhibited,
whilst another was ‘‘spread about the altar.”
He thought it a splendid thing that we had embarked in
a cause of national righteousness........... They believed their
country had been fighting for the restoration of liberty, jus
tice and equity to their fellow-countrymen, unfairly op
pressed, and that they had, by God’s help, overcome a sordid,
ignoble, and wicked conspiracy.—Rev. Forbes E. Winslow,
Rector of St. Leonard’s-on-Sea, on the surrender of Pretoria.
We have nothing to add, but to strike the new note of
�optimism. All is for the best in the best of all possible
worlds. We feel ourselves to be like Israel coming out of
Egypt—Jehovah has triumphed, his people are free. The
Boer oligarchy has been broken down. A base conspiracy
against the liberties of mankind and the equality of races
has been swept away. Like the Mormons of Utah, these
Boers have been overtaken at last, and by the aid of a great
army and at vast cost their anti-social settlements have been
broken up. Kruger and his gang of unscrupulous dacoits
have been laid by the heel, and the last cry, “ Give me back
my gold,” has been raised as the “ Bundesrath ” steamed
out of Delagoa Bay, carrying off to the Netherlands thirtysix chests of loot.—From an article entitled “Optimism,” in
the “ Church Gazette,” June 16, 1900, by the Rev. J. B.
Heard, M.A., Hulsean Lecturer.
Not the yellowest editor on earth has come near the
abysmal conception of the Rev. E. J. Houghton, rec
tor of St. Stephen’s, Bristol.
In the course of an
Accession Day sermon this worthy sketched his idea of
a war memorial, for which he asked the alms of. his
hearers : It would take, he said, the form of the Cruci
fied Christ, surrounded by the nimbus and the Union
Jack, while at the foot, in the place of the familiar
figures of St. John and Mary, would be those of St.
Stephen and St. George, a soldier and a blue-jacket.”-—
“ Morning Leader,” June 26, 1900.
” A strawberry tea and sale of work, in aid of the
fund for putting new gates to St. Paul’s Church, Chat
ham, was held in the vicarage grounds on Wednesday
afternoon and evening.
Cocoanut shies and other
amusements, such as Kruger and his pill, were in full
swing.”—“ Chatham and Rochester Observer,” July 7,
1900.
A column of the
Kent and Sussex Courier ” of
November 3, 1899, contains a chorus of the local clergy.
The Rev. D. Stather Hunt, vicar of Holy Trinity, wrote
deploring the horrors of war : —
Thank God, the present war is not of our seeking : nay,
we may go further and say that our Government seems to
have done its utmost to prevent the outbreak. Unfortunately
the ignorant arrogance of a people who have not hesitated
to express their intention of driving the British into the sea
has been too much for those who were endeavouring to bring
about an honourable and settled peace by means of diplo
macy. It has been patent to many for years past that the
Boers were bent on bringing about such an issue.
�(
i9
)
The Rev. Dr. Townsend, vicar of St. Mark’s, wrote :
The Government have known for long enough (what we
are only grasping slowly and almost incredulously) that a
vast conspiracy has been spreading through Cape Colony
and Natal among the Dutch residents in our territory: a
conspiracy hatched and helped on by the Transvaal and
Orange Free State to drive the English out and to establish
a great Dutch South Africa. It is no wonder, therefore, that
the whole nation has sprung to its feet to resist this wrong,
and that a thrill of patriotic feeling has been felt over the
great Empire to its farthest extremities.
The Rev. C. Storey, vicar of Christ Church, wrote : —
Forbearance and patience on the part of our Government
seem to have been mistaken by the Boers for weakness and
vacillation, so their tone towards us became more and more
insolent, culminating in an ultimatum, to which its authors
must have known there was but one answer............ We ad
mire the cool courage and the skill of those in command, and
the splendid heroism of the rank and file, who face the foe
without flinching, and storm and carry their positions with a
ringing British cheer.
Another dignitary thus wrote :—
It is rumoured that we are to have a day of humiliation.
Had we not better wait till we are humiliated ? We fight for
justice and equity between man and man. And are we sorry
for that ? There never was more self-sacrifice shown in our
land than now, and should this make us ashamed before God
or man?—Prebendary Harry Jones, in “Times,” December
18, 1899.
Here, once more, is the archiepiscopal tag, “ justice
and equity between man and man,” which did service
in so many declamations. Gatacre, Methuen, Buller,
and the flower of the British army had been routed by
Boer farmers, but the Prebendary was still waiting to
be humiliated.
A few more mementos :—
That in the present case it is on our side a righteous war,
into which we entered unwillingly, does not affect the ques
tion. We believe that it is a righteous war, and that we shall
be ultimately successful. We shall do our very utmost to
succeed. The present attitude of the nation is a guarantee
for that.—Rev. E. A. Eardley-Wilmot, in “Times,” Decem
ber 23, 1899.
One cannot read the Old Testament without seeing very
plainly that under the providence of God war as well as
�(
20
)
famine and pestilence have been instruments in God’s
hands, and used by Him, even commanded by Him, to ac
complish His divine purposes.
It is not difficult to see how completely the Boer influence
in South Africa has always been an obstruction to the spread
of Christ’s church. The motto of Boer Christianity has never
been “ Preach the Gospel to every creature,” but rather
“Keep the Gospel to yourselves.”—“The Kingdom and the
Empire,” Ten Sermons for the present times, Preached in a
Village Church. Richard Orme Assheton, 1902.
We close our list of “ panegyrics ” to be credited to
the Established Church with quotations from two Army
Chaplains : —
If Great Britain is not ready to draw the sword, and give
the signal to her marksmen to sight their rifles for justice,
liberty, and freedom, only because the crotchetty conscience
of some little Englander who would dwarf our dominions
everywhere calls a halt, then the half-breeds will get first
blood, and their hangmen will find halters for every tree..........
We must strike for life and honour such a blow as shall make
all Boerdom reel. Oom Paul will swim through seas of blood,
Psalm-singing with every stomach stroke, and not the least
bit off colour all the while. Whilst we are politically pro
crastinating, he is prayerfully preparing, and whilst some of
our Radicals are calling on the hucksters of the party to curse
our cause and bless our enemies, he is in pious prostration
before the Lord of Hosts. Meanwhile his myrmidons can all
do murder at a pinch, and to ravish they are not ashamed.—
Rev. A. Robins, Military Chaplain of Windsor, in “ Daily
Telegraph,” September 6, 1899.
It is something to find that in its obituary notice of
this follower of the Prince of Peace—he died before the
end of the year—the “ Guardian ” spoke of his “ ultra
militant and scarcely clerical sentiments in regard to
Mr. Kruger.” “ Scarcely clerical ” was an admission.
In South Africa Jesus Christ had had a chance with these
men [soldiers]. The Church must make it possible for the
soldier to have in peace the virtues he had in war.—The Chap
lain-General, October 3, 1901.
The “ Guardian ” newspaper may be supposed to
reflect fairly clerical opinion. On December 1, 1899, it
had a leading article on ” The Blessing of War.” It
wrote : ” That [war] in which we are now unhappily en
gaged is one that was entered on as righteously as it is
being conducted bravely. We are fighting both for our
religion and our existence. . . . We have had it forced
on us by the inexorable law of self-preservation. . . .
�It is very singular that this should not be recognised
by those anaemic people among us—few as they are, they
are all too many—who seem to base their every action
on the simple axiom that whatever is British is wrong.
.... Our Lord Himself declared that He came not to
send peace but a sword.”
Other DenominationsWe turn now to pronouncements of the non-cstablishcd clergy. In the circumstances, and not alone on
the ground of its antiquity, we give the first place to the
Synagogue.
On December 5, 1899, the Rev. Francis Cohen,
preaching at the Aidgate Synagogue, said : —
It was felt by British Jews to be a privilege and an honour
to fight for the British flag, for, in addition to their natural
devotion to the land of their birth, the spirit of the AngloSaxon seemed to them more to draw its nourishment from
Biblical principles than was the case with any other modern
stock.
The reference to the British flag reminds us that Mr.
Rhodes, himself of Jewish origin, regarded the British
flag as the most valuable commercial asset of the British
Empire. The worthy rabbi was, no doubt, quite right
in his testimony to the “ Biblical principles ” of the
Anglo-Saxon, by which we are, of course, to understand
the principles of the Old Testament. Others than the
Boers have felt the weight of these “ Biblical prin
ciples.” ‘‘The conversion of the papists in Ireland,”
said Sir John Clotworthy, “ was only to be effected by
the Bible in one hand and the sword in the other.” The
precept was so well observed that, as is said by Prender
gast in his ‘‘Cromwellian Settlement of Ireland,”
‘‘ truly they had no bloodier instrument than the Bible
in all their arsenal of war. ”
The Chief Rabbi had before this directed a prayer to
be offered in the Synagogues of the United Hebrew con
gregations of the British Empire during the continuance
of the war : —
Unto Thee, O Lord, we give thanks, for already hath Thy
right hand helped our troops...............Gird them with victory,
so that the war be speedily ended. (“ Times,” October 26,
1899.)
Cardinal Vaughan, the head of the English Catholics,
�(
22
)
seems to have had his doubts as to Mr. Chamberlain’s
good faith in negotiating, for on October i, 1899, he
uttered this solemn warning : —
An unjust or an unnecessary war would be a great national
crime, deserving of Divine chastisement, because it would be
an offence against God and mankind.
But if he had his doubts they were soon dispelled, for
he thus spoke of the war in a circular letter issued in
December, 1899 : —
Whatever doubt was entertained as to the lawfulness of en
forcing the British demands by recourse to the sword, there
can be no doubt now that we have been forced into war, and
that justice is on our side. It has been clearly ascertained
that Boer leaders in both Republics had long since deter
mined to strike for the establishment of a Boer supremacy
throughout South Africa; that military preparations on a
large scale had been secretly carried out for that purpose.
It is needless to repeat that the Cardinal’s assumptions
had no foundation in fact.
Dr. Bilsborrow, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Sal
ford, was asked to sign a requisition to the Mayor of
Manchester to summon a meeting of the citizens on the
subject of the Concentration Camps. He refused : —
Whilst I am in perfect harmony with the kindly sentiments
of those who wish to call a public meeting, I do not conceive
it to be either advantageous or necessary as a means of
lessening the mortality, whilst it is not unlikely to embarrass
the Cabinet, and possibly tend to inflame still more political
passions. (“ Times,” November n, 1901.)
There was too much sugar}’ jargon and talk of peace. It
was said that war was hell.
He had his doubts about that.
There were worse things than war. God, in the scheme of
this great universe, had included the earthquake, the pesti
lence, and the storm, and how did they know that He was not
the Lord of Hosts, and the God of Battles?—The Protestant
Archbishop of Armagh, at the Diocesan Synod, October 24,
1899.
The Archbishop had probably already worked out this
idea in verse.
For in the “ Times ” of October 31
appeared a poem by him in eighteen stanzas. In one of
these he seemed to find some affinity between the British
Tommy and Thomas a Kempis. We can give only the
first, second, and eighteenth stanzas : —
They say that “war is hell,” “the great accursed,”
The sin impossible to be forgiven—
Yet I can look beyond it at its worst.
And still find peace in heaven.
�(
23
)
And as I note how nobly natures form
Under the war’s red rain, I deem it true
That he who made the earthquake and the storm
Perchance makes battles, too !
Thus, as the heaven's many coloured flames
At sunset are but dust in rich disguise,
The ascending earthquake dust of battle frames
God’s pictures in the skies.
In an article in the “North American Review,’’
September, 1900, Dean Farrar quoted with entire ap
proval these “ words of a most venerable and excellent
prelate. ’’
The Bible hardly seems to see any evil in war at all............
Nor is the New Testament far behind in this respect. The
Lord Jesus never says a word against war. John the Bap
tist gives advice to soldiers, but never condemns their profes
sion. St. Paul revels in military phrases. The history of the
world is full of wars, then must war be congenial to the mind
of God in His evolution of Humanity./ What does God care
for death ? What does God care for pain ? Many good people
go into hysterics about the horrors of war............. But all
such talk is artificial.—Canon Carmichael, of the Protestant
Church of Ireland. (“The Christian,” January 11, 1900.)
There is already a very widespread and an ever-growing
conviction that the bloody business which has occupied us
through the year will prove a great national blessing. The
verdict of history .... will be this, that heavy though the
price, the result will be worth it all.—Rev. Dr. Macgregor,
one of her Majesty’s chaplains for Scotland, in the “ Weekly
Scotsman,” December 15, 1900.
We suppose that this is the gentleman who, on
October 7 of the present year, took a subordinate part in
a ceremony conducted in St. Giles’ Cathedral, Edin
burgh, by General Sir Ian Hamilton. If so, the Rev.
Dr. Macgregor is not one who would cry, “ Thou Canst
Not Say I Did It.’’ We cannot find space for General
Sir Ian Hamilton’s preponderant part in the service.
Dr. Macgregor’s is thus told. The memorial is to the
officers and men of a regiment who fell in South Africa :
“ I now solemnly dedicate this memorial to the glory and
service of our great God, and to the memory of those brave
men, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost.” The buglers then sounded the reveille, after
which Dr. Macgregor delivered an address. He said : Among
all the monuments in this cathedral, there was not one more
�(
24
)
sacred or more well-deserved than the memorial which had
been erected to their brave comrades whose names were re
corded on the memorial. The South African War was the
result of long-continued provocation, and the Boer ultimatum
of transcendant insolence, and the nation and Empire re
solved as one man to restore what should never have been
given away—the absolute authority over the Transvaal—
if it cost them their last sixpence and their last man. Britain
never entered on a more righteous war than that, nor one
which owing to the vastness and ruggedness of territory, and
the immense distance from their shores, was more arduous
and difficult. There is not another nation in the world that
could have faced it with success.
The hymn, “ The Son of God goes forth to war,” was
then sung, after which the benediction was pronounced
by Dr. Macgregor, and closed with “ God Save the
King.”
(Edinburgh ‘‘Evening News,” October 7,
J9O5-)
The Rev. Dr. Scott, of St. George’s, Edinburgh, and
other leading members [of the Synod of Lothian and
Tweeddale of the Church of Scotland] strongly ex
pressed themselves as to the righteousness of the British
part in the war. War, said Dr. Scott, had been forced
upon the British by those who had long been premeditat
ing it, and long preparing for it, and who had rushed at
the first opportunity. (‘‘ Times,” November 8, 1899.)
God, because he is a righteous God, can never bless un
righteousness, and had ours been an unrighteous cause
no prayers could have availed to turn away His displeasure
from us.—Dr. Norman McLeod, Thanksgiving Sermon,
June, 1902.
The “Free Churches.”
We come now to the Protestant Nonconformists, con
stituting the ‘‘Free Churches.” Dr. Horton, as will
be seen later, claimed that ‘‘ the proportion of pro-Boers
among Free Churchmen is less than among members of
the Established Church.”
e incline to think that
this was merely a vainglorious boast.
In the worst
times there was a remnant of Nonconformists strongly
opposed to the war. This opposition, though ineffec
tual, sometimes made itself known. Here is an in
stance :—
The London Baptist Association decided by 85 votes
�(
25
)
against 36 that a resolution expressing sorrow at the pro
longation of the war in South Africa, and the loss of pre
cious lives, and containing an appeal to the Government to
offer such terms of settlement to the enemy as would he inducive to bring this lamentable struggle to a close, was
“too controversial” to be discussed on the platform of the
Association. (Letter from a correspondent, “ Daily News,”
September, 1901.)
Be that as it may, whether the “ Free Churches ”
could or could not boast of a smaller proportion of “ pro
Boers ” than the Established Church, they undoubtedly
had their energumens, chief among them the Rev. Hugh
Price Hughes.
Mr. Hughes, who claimed that Jesus
Christ was the founder of Methodism, occupied a posi
tion almost unassailable. He was regarded as the head
of Wesleyan Methodism ; was a popular preacher, and
controlled a weekly newspaper, “ The Methodist
Times.”
He claimed to be in possession of super
natural gifts, and as there was no repudiation of the
claim, which must have made generations of buried
Nonconformists turn in their graves, we must assume
that it was admitted. W ith all these things in favour
of his war-campaign, Mr. Hughes was probably right
in asserting that 75 per cent, of the Wesleyan Metho
dists favoured the war. ” W esleyan Methodism,” he
declared, “ is an Imperial bodv, even to an extent that
Wesleyan Methodists themselves do not recognise.”
This Imperialism was shown by the fact that Mr. Cham
berlain was actually invited to lunch at the celebration
of the 100th anniversary of Wesley’s death. The lun
cheon was to be preceded by a four hours’ continuous
prayer-meeting, and a sermon by Dr. Watson (Ian Mac
laren). Owing to the strenuous opposition, headed by
Dr. Lunn, Mr. Chamberlain was compelled to give up
the engagement. Mr. Hughes was probably the most
potent ally of Chamberlain and Milner, themselves the
tools of the motley crew of Johannesburg mine-owners.
A short extract from Mr. Hughes’s paper will suffice :
We absolutely decline to put on sackcloth in relation to
this present war, hateful as its inevitable incidents are to us.
We rather desire to be clothed with garments of praise, and
to thank God from the bottom of our hearts that, after all,
Old England and her colonies are not so eaten up with the love
of gold, or so enervated by luxury as to be afraid of sacrifi
cing everything, even life itself, in the defence of freedom,
justice, and humanity.
�Mr. Hughes’s passionate advocacy of the war led
him into strange depths.
He declared that President
Kruger had for fifteen years been preparing for war.
He declared that “it is now in evidence that immense
sums—in fact, all that the so-called Republic could af
ford—had been spent in preparing for an attack on the
British Empire.” He refused to publish disproof of his
statements, having no “ evidence ” behind them. He
also refused to publish letters in vindication of John
Bright written by the daughter of that statesman.
There was a strange scene at St. James’s Hall, on
Peace Sunday, December 24, 1900, when, challenging
some of Mr. Hughes’s statements, a lady waved a
Bible, crying, “ It’s not in the Bible 1” and “A Voice ”
told him to be honest and go to the front 1
After all this it reads like a bad joke to find that at the
Methodist Conference of 1901, a subject for discussion
was “ The Influence of Methodism in the Promotion of
International Peace ” !
Other “ Free Churchmen,” if they could not keep up
with the stride of Mr. Hughes, followed as best they
could. On February 4, 1900, the Rev. W. J. Dawson
preached at Highbury on “ Patriotism as the Duty of
the Hour.” “ The British Weekly,” a Nonconformist
organ, gave this account of the sermon : —
“As Mr. Dawson proceeded with his address, it was
obvious that the audience could with difficulty restrain
their emotions. In referring to those who had gone to
the war, some from that very congregation, he would
say,
Glory be to God that such sons are still born of English
mothers ! Glory be to God that there are still those found
amid the over-ripeness of a luxurious civilisation who are
willing and eager to die for their country !
This outburst was instantly followed by a denunciation
of those who in the present crisis, with Europe eager
for our downfall, raised the cry: “Stop the war!”
Such persons were either imbeciles or traitors ; imbe
ciles if they thought it could be stopped, and traitors if
they thought it ought to be stopped. At this point
the whole audience broke out into loud applause. There
were some hostile cries, but the agreement of the
audience with the preacher was overwhelming.”
�(
27
)
From the printed address we add the following :—
The war must go on as long as there is a single man in the
British Empire capable of bearing arms. It must go on be
cause it is a war for progress, liberty, and good government
in South Africa, for human rights and human equality ; nor
will its object be achieved till all men from the Zambesi to
Cape Town enjoy the rights of free citizenship.
A correspondent of the “ New Age ” (November 9)
has given some quotations from an article on “ The
Folly of War,” by Mr. Dawson, printed in the “ Wes
tern Weekly Mercury ” in August, 1904:—
The fact of the matter is that war is the worst of all human
follies.
In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred it can be
avoided without the least cost of honour.
The man who
provokes a war is at once the biggest of all fools and the
greatest of all criminals. Pride and ignorance are the chief
chief causes of war.
We have heard some such tardy condemnations of war
spoken of as “ recantations,” on the strength of which
we are asked to forget former eulogies of the Boer war.
Dr. Parker, of the City Temple, one of the leading
lights of Nonconformity, thus spoke when the tremen
dous issue of peace or war was apparently trembling in
the balance—apparently, though, as we now know, the
Government had already determined upon the subjuga
tion of the two Republics, and was only waiting till the
country was “ ready.” Speaking at Bath, on October
11, 1899, Dr. Parker said:—
The members of the Government were inside the question,
they knew more than those outside coulcl possibly know, and
they were as patriotic as others were, whether they were
Liberals or Tories. He, therefore, left the final decision to
the Government, and, whatever it might be, he would heartily
and reverently throw in his lot with theirs. There was no
man there to speak a word in favour of war; there was no
man there who was not a lover of peace. The Lord was a
man of war.......... They should leave the issue with the Sove
reign of the Universe.
This is how he expressed himself in his “ Thanks
giving Sermon,” preached at the City Temple in June,
1902 : —
He believed with all his heart that this country was by one
act of the Transvaal positively driven into war. England was
not accustomed to have an ultimatum thrown in her face.
She answered such an ultimatum with a great challenge of
patriotism and fire............ There was one man for whom he
would not make things too easy, and that was Mr. Kruger.
�(
28
)
Some loose tongues might call him the most snivelling old
hypocrite on the face of the whole earth, but as a Christian
minister he was bound not to say such things. As an honest
man, however, he was bound to agree with it. Paul Kruger
paid one of the handsomest tributes to the British army ever
paid to that great body. We owe it to Paul Kruger to say
that he got on the back of a veld pony, with two millions
sterling behind him, and left his wife in charge of the British !
Isn’t that a tribute to pay to the arms, the courage, the chiv
alry of this country?
At Union Church (or Chapel), Brighton, the Rev. R.
J. Campbell was qualifying for the future occupancy of
the pulpit of the City Temple. On December 17, 1899,
he said : —
I am amongst the minority who do not approve and
never have approved of the motive for this war.
We owe
it in the first place to the Jameson Raid.............
A great
deal of cant has been talked about the Divine mission when
we have wanted to take such and such land. Let us away
with that for ever.
But in the following March he went to South Africa,
from which he returned an enthusiastic advocate of the
war. He lectured upon it.
A correspondent of the
“ New Age ” (March 21, 1901) thus described the lec
ture on what proved to be a memorable occasion : —
A large sheet was fitted up in front of the pulpit, and
various limelight pictures were thrown upon it from
time to time as the lecture proceeded. Photos of ar
moured trains, 4.7 guns, lyddite shells, and other en
gines of destruction met with a good deal of applause,
but when the photo of our hero-god, Lord Roberts, was
shown, the applause was almost frantic. As it died
away, someone asked, “ May we now see a picture of
Christ, as I consider that would be only proper in this
House of Prayer?”
The cry of “ pro-Boer ” was immediately raised, and
Mr. Bull, of Enfield, who had been so ill-advised as to
mention the name of Christ, was ejected with great
violence from this Christian temple. He himself thus
explained his indiscretion : I had protested against
their Christian church being turned into a recruiting
room by speech and illustrations glorifying the slaughter
of our fellow creatures for empire, lust, gold mines, and
revenge.
Mr. Campbell, whose conversion to Jingoism was
�(
29
)
rapid, seems to adhere to his new faith, for he thus spoke
on November i, 1903 —
We have heard a great deal of late about the horrors of
the war in which we were recently engaged. It is all a
question of imagination. The horrors of war—and war is
always hell—are nothing to the devastations of peace.
The passage occurs, appropriately enough, in a ser
mon on “ Some Signs of the Times.” It is indeed a
portentous sign of the times that these words should
have been spoken in one of the leading pulpits of Non
conformity.
The Rev. Bernard Snell, of the Brixton Independent
Chapel, preached in 1899 and 1900 on the subject of the
war five sermons, afterwards printed in a small volume.
Their air of restraint made these sermons more dan
gerous than the coarse inflammatory appeals of less
skilful advocates.
Great Britain has undertaken stern and arduous work, in
volving honour and justice. There are those who speak of
cupidity, revenge, and arrogance, as the springs of this war.
For myself I am content to say that I believe England to be
making a great effort in what she deems to be a righteous
cause........... The Government exhausted the patience of our
people in trying every resource of a peaceful termination to
negotiations, and at last moved with grave reluctance.............
There is no nation on earth so instinctively opposed to war,
no nation that has given so many hostages to peace. We
stand to win nothing by war, we stand to lose much. War is
horrible, but it was not we that plunged into it. The Jameson
Raid was [not a crime, but] a deplorable mistake. War was
thrust suddenly upon us. I know nothing more shameful
than to speak of it as “ Mr. Chamberlain’s war ” : I know no
speech in my time that has been so cruel and wicked as that.
The contest was not of our making : it was precipitated by the
imprudent dreaming of our opponents that they might drive
us from the land. We had no lust of conquest. Our Premier
declared: “We seek no territory; we seek no gold-fields.”
[Mr. Snell forgot that Lord Salisbury, attacked on account
of having so spoken, was quickly driven to eat his words.]
But what can we say to the following ? : “Nothing could be more
deplorable, more pitiable, than that England, whose pride it
has ever been to befriend small nationalities, should feel
laid upon her the odious business of crushing these two
Southern Republics. It seemed as if the Anglo-Saxons were
the victims of Fate, for here were the Americans driven to
prevent the self-government of the Philippines, and at the
same time engaged in devastating Cuba.”
�Yes, on the part of the United States, “ Hell-roaring
Jake ” was taking up “ the white man’s burden ” !
The series of sermons concludes with a benediction
of the peacemakers, of whom, possibly—for self-decep
tion has no limits—Mr. Snell deemed himself one.
Dr. Horton, of Hampstead, was, we believe, at this
time a Vice-President of a Peace Society. On October
7, 1900, he preached a sermon on the lessons of the
war.
After eulogising the actions of some of our
soldiers in the field, deeds “ which glorify our human
nature,” he continued : —
And while there are these deeds of courage and devotion
upon the field, we have had also in the person of our Commander-in-Chief a certain subject for devout gratitude as a
nation. There has shone from him a gentle and chivalrous
radiance which will rank him in the noble line of Nelson and
of Wellington.
Then, after a long quotation from Wordsworth’s
“ Happy Warrior,” he continued : —
We have to be profoundly thankful that that ideal des
cription by a poet at the beginning of the century should be
again realised in the character of the man whom circum
stances placed at the head of military operations in South
Africa........... We have at least this profound subject of con
gratulation and joy, that there came in the hour of need the
Happy Warrior, the man who was no brute soldier, but a
gentle and tender Christian spirit. (“Christian World Pul
pit,” October 10, 1900.)
It must be assumed that when this was spoken Dr.
Horton was unacquainted with what is known as the
“Infamous Circular Memorandum ” sanctioned by Lord
Roberts for, to put it quite plainly, the supply of native
women to soldiers’ brothels. (“ The Queen’s Daugh
ters in India,” 1899, p. 17.)
It must also be assumed that Dr. Horton was igno
rant of the manner in which Lord Roberts had carried
on war in Afghanistan in 1879 (Mr. Frederic Harrison
in “ Fortnightly Review,” December, 1879, March,
1880). But assumptions must end here. It is impos
sible to suppose that Dr. Horton was ignorant of the
course of events in South Africa. We were, indeed, at
this time far from knowing all that was then being done
by the Commander-in-Chief, the subject of this extrava
gant eulogy by the Vice-President of a Peace Society.
But we knew something from his own Proclamations : —
“ June 16, i<)co. - The principal residents of the town
�(
31
)
and districts will be held, jointly and severally, respon
sible for the amount of damage [to railways, telegraphs,
etc.] done in their district. As a further precautionary
measure, the Director of Military Railways has been
authorised to order that one or more of the residents,
who will be selected by him from each district, shall
from time to time personally accompany the trains
while travelling through their district. The houses and
farms in the vicinity of the place where the damage is
done will be destroyed, and the residents in the neigh
bourhood dealt with under Martial Law.”
” September i, 1900.—All persons are hereby warned
to acquaint her Majesty’s forces of the presence of the
enemy upon, or in the neighbourhood of, their farms,
and if they fail to do so they will be regarded as aiding
and abetting the enemy, and will be liable to be treated
as rebels. ”
Dr. Horton is perhaps now aware that the methods
of warfare employed by his “ Happy Warrior ” were un
reservedly condemned by no less an authority than FieldMarshal Sir Neville Chamberlain (Letters to the “ Man
chester Guardian,” reprinted in the South Africa Con
ciliation Committee’s leaflet, No. 82).
At the National Free Church Council, held in March,
1900, the Rev. C. H. Kelly, “ the genial and masterful
President,” contrived to burke all discussion of the
war, or, as the “ British Weekly ” said, “ broke the
neck of a very menacing difficulty. ” On this incident
the Rev. Dr. Clifford commented in these terms : —“ It
is a somewhat pathetic spectacle that a gathering of the
wisest, sanest, and saintliest men in the kingdom should
be unable to give, in a grave crisis of the nation’s his
tory, any word of advice ” (“ British Weekly,” March
22, igoo).
But the question could not be burked for ever.
At the Free Church Conference in July, 1901, there
was what may be described as a fight for the soul of
Nonconformity on the question of the war.
At this
date the facts about farm burning were well known.
The wife of the Military Governor of Pretoria had pub
lished an appeal on behalf of ” the little children who are
living in open tents, without fires, and possessing onlv
the scantiest of clothes.” All this and much more was
known. From a sermon preached on January 6, 190T,
�I
32
)
it is clear that Dr. Horton knew that farms had been
burnt and that women and children had been driven
from their homes.
Let him tell us the result of the
struggle at the Conference. The following is from his
letter quoted in the “ Daily Chronicle ” of October 26,
1901 :—
I hope you will be able to convey to the Congregationalists
in South Africa the truth that our Free Church Conference
in July represented the defeat of the pro-Boer section among
us. Our manifesto started from the point that nothing should
be done till the enemy surrender. The proportion of pro
Boers among Free Churchmen is less than among members
of the Established Church............. I cannot bear that our
brethren at the Cape should feel that we are out of sympathy
with them on this matter.
If the metaphor can be allowed in speaking of a minis
ter, we may say, in Lord Salisbury’s words, that Dr.
Horton has since discovered that he “ put his money on
the wrong horse.” Early this year he preached a most
edifying sermon on the text, “ Nation shall not lift up
the sword against nation, neither shall they learn war
any more. ” But, in this case, what opening will there be
for the “ gentle and chivalrous radiance ” of a future
Commander-in-Chief, of a future “ Happy Warrior ”?
Dr. John Watson (Ian Maclaren) was widely known
both as preacher and writer. Here are three passages
from sermons or addresses delivered by him : —
The question before us is simply this : Whether, with the
Ammonites and the Syrians, and all the rest of them that fear
and hate us, united against us in battle array, we ought to
negotiate for peace on such terms as the King of Ammon
and the King of Zobah may be pleased to give us, or to fight
the matter out to the bitter end........... For my own part ....
I see no other way for it, but that we must continue this war
till our arms have triumphed and we have planted our flag in
the capitals of the allies, and that to accomplish this end we
must put forth our whole resources, both of men and of
treasure. (“British Weekly,” February 22, 1900.)
Here, again, in this jargon about Ammonites, Syrians,
and the King of Zobah, we find the “ Biblical prin
ciples ” endearing the ‘‘Anglo-Saxon ” to the chosen
people.
There are many of us who were afraid—and we had some
reason—that the lure of gold, so dangerous a snare for every
people, had something to do with the beginning of the war,
and against that some of us lifted our voices............. It is
not for gold that England is fighting to-day !
No ! When
�(
33
)
England rises in a body, and such intriguers or speculators
disappear: and England rose, and England fights to-day for
that which has been dear to her, from the Commonwealth
downwards—for liberty, for righteousness, for equal rights
between man and man, for lasting peace in a fair province of
God's world, and for the ancient, unstained glory of the
English nation.—March 2, 1900. (“ Christian World Pulpit.”)
Do not let us forget the ignoble spectacle of that obstinate,
greedy old man, who, having ruined his country, fled from
its capital, carrying with him every piece of gold on which
he could lay his hands. ... I suppose there has not been any
Government in modern days, outside barbarism, so utterly
and hopelessly dense as that which, to the good of the land,
we have swept away at Pretoria..................Do not let us cant in
speaking as if we were the holiest people on earth, and do not
let us cant in speaking of our opponents as if they were an
upright, modest, well-governed, and well-ordered people.—
June 10, 1900. (“British Weekly.”)
It is not for gold that England is fighting to-day !”
So spoke Dr. Watson in 1900. Had he forgotten this
sermon when he spoke at the Free Church Congress at
Newcastle? We ask, because we have before us a re
port of a meeting of the Congress, at which the new
yellow slavery—an outcome of the war, one of the
objects of the war—was denounced by him : —
“ ‘ The late war was largely brought about by the lust
for gold, and by the conduct of the international crimi
nals who ought to be in penal servitude—’
He could proceed no further for the clamorous
applause.
“ A delegate shouted, ‘ Why did you not say this three
years ago ?’
I did,’ cried Mr. Watson indignantly, ‘ from my
own pulpit,’ and then he ended his former sentence—
‘ but instead of penal servitude are sitting in Parlia
ment
)
|]
Was it God’s will for us to be confined to these little islands,
to be among the dependent and conquered peoples ? I feel
sure it was not. (And his audience corroborated by applaud
ing vociferously.) I altogether repudiate the suggestion. What
some regard as Godlessly gained I regard as God-given.
While as a nation we have sins to confess, I cannot believe
that we ought to have refrained from winning and holding
an Empire. I believe it is for the world’s welfare that we
should rule.......... And it is because I believe that the British
ideal for South Africa is nobler than the Boer, and more for
the advantage of the world at lajge, that while I deeply de
�(
34
)
plore the war now being waged, I can and do prav for the
speedy success of the British arms.—Rev. Alfred Rowland.
(“Christian World,” March i, 1900.)
At Gracehill Wesleyan Church, in December, 1899,
the Rev. George Adcock gave a list of thirty-nine wars
in which England had been engaged since 1838, and
now, he said :
We have the second Transvaal war which is being waged on
behalf of our oppressed countrymen, and which we pray and
believe will eventually tend to the fuller and firmer establish
ment of Christ’s kingdom. (“Folkestone Herald,” Dec. 9,
1899.)
At a thanksgiving service for the relief of Ladysmith
at Princes Street Church, Norwich, the Rev. Dr. Barrett
said that the war meant on the one hand the supremacy
of righteousness, liberty, and equality between nations,
or, on the other, the domination of a corrupt military
oligarchy. (“ Christian World,” March 8, 1900.)
President Kruger has been blamed for many things.
In the following passage we find him—often abused as
an ignorant, unlettered peasant—told that he ruined his
country through not being acquainted with the results of
modern Biblical criticism ! Poor man !
Had that misguided man, President Kruger, made himself
intelligently acquainted with the results of modern criticism
of the Old and New Testaments, he would not have allowed
the incidents related in the Hexateuch to bulk so largely be
fore his eyes as to hide from him the teaching, so much better
and nobler, of the four Gospels. He would not then ignor
antly and superstitiously have pursued a course which has
brought nothing but devastation, misery, and death in its
train.—Dr. Scott, Principal of the Congregational Union,
1902.
Here are a few miscellaneous jottings : —
The other day a Wesleyan minister wrote this sort of
thing : “ The Boers, by their present desperate policy,
have for the time put themselves outside the pale of civi
lisation and of all the international regulations to which
civilised governments have agreed with the view to miti
gate the horrors of war.”
Do you realise what that
is? When a minister of the Gospel tells you that these
men, because they have withstood us, have put them
selves outside the pale of civilisation, I think I am justi
fied in saying that there has been an explosion of bar
barism.—Mr. John Morley, at Brechin, June 5, 1901.
�(
35
)
Who now dare preach the cowardly doctrine of the
forgiveness of enemies?
A clergyman in the North of England, quoted by Dr.
Spence Watson. (“ Herald of Peace,” October, 1901.)
Replies to a suggestion made in February, 1901, for
a Peace Sunday.
A rector, N.B., writes :—
Preacher : The ” Maxim.”
Time : Now and on, until Britain’s enemies are ex
terminated.
Literature required : A record of all exterminated—
their numbers.
A clergyman from Bath :—
Peace with the enemies of God, and of the Israel of
God? Never.—(” Herald of Peace,” March, 1902.)
The Massacre of the Innocents.
Let us also learn to detest the horrible cruelty of the
Spaniards in all executions of warlike stratagems, lest the
dishonour of such beastly deeds might bedim the honour
wherewith English soldiers have always been endowed in their
victories.—“ The Spoil of Antwerp,” 1576.
She said: Let me not see the death of the child. And she
sat over against him, and lift up her voice and wept.—Genesis,
xxi, 16.
It were better for him that a mill-stone were hanged about
his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend
one of these little ones.—Gospel of St. Luke, xvii, 2.
In the years 1896 to 1898 the country had rung with
denunciations of the Spanish General, Weyler, who had
invented Concentration Camps as a method of warfare.
For instance, the “ Spectator ” of April 23, 1898, had
these words : ” General Weyler issued an order more
terrible than any given since the days when Louis XIV
ordered the wasting of the Palatinate.” The measure
was admirably characterised by President McKinley, in
his Message to Congress, in April, 1898 : ” The policy
of devastation and concentration ” was stigmatised as
“ a new and inhuman phase happily unprecedented in
the modern history of civilised Christian peoples.............
The fields were laid waste, dwellings unroofed and de-
�(
36
)
stroycd, and, in short, everything- that could desolate
the land and render it unlit for human habitation or
support.” ‘‘ Reconcentration, adopted avowedly as a
war measure to cut off the resources of the insurgents,
worked its predestined result. It was extermination.
The only peace it could beget was that of the wilder
ness and the grave.” Who that listened to British de
nunciations of Weyler’s atrocious measure could have
believed that within a very short time England would
herself adopt the invention? So it was, however. In
the words of Lord Milner ‘‘ the formation of Concentra
tion Camps was adopted on purely military grounds as
a means of hastening the end of the war.” President
McKinley spoke of the ‘‘predestined result.” In the
case of the Camps established by Lord Roberts the
result was not only predestined. The result of General
Weyler’s new methods of warfare was ascertained. It
was before the British Government, the British Gene
rals, and the people of Great Britain.
The Government made futile attempts to blind us to
the character of these Camps. ‘‘ These are voluntary
camps formed for protection.
Those who come can
go,” said Mr. Brodrick on February 25, 1901. Later
he declared that “ the great majority of the women and
children now concentrated [mark the word] in camps
had gone in on their own desire.” ‘‘ It was absolutely
untrue that there had been wholesale devastation in the
Transvaal and Orange River Colonies ” (February 26,
1901). “ It is not a fact that the death-rate among the
women and children was abnormally high ” (April 25,
1901).
In the first Returns the Camps were called
“ Camps of Relief ” or ‘‘ Refugee Camps,” but their
parentage could not be disowned, they finally became
known, even officially, by a name giving a new and
horrible significance to the word ‘‘ Concentration ” :
to the end of English history they will be known as
‘‘Concentration Camps.”
In time, after infinite lying on the part of the Minis
try, we learnt the facts. Thirty thousand homesteads
were burnt : even churches, school-houses, and libraries
did not escape : British and Canadians “ burnt a tract
six miles wide through fertile valleys, turning out the
women and children to sit and cry beside the ruins of
their once beautiful farmsteads ” : the whole country
was pillaged, plundered, and devastated : live stock
�(
37
)
killed, one column alone destroyed 60,000 sheep : agri
cultural implements were destroyed : crops trodden into
the ground : irrigation dams broken down. Lord Mil
ner admitted that “ the destruction of agricultural capi
tal is now pretty well complete ” (November 15, 1901.
Cd. 903 of 1902, p. 135). Later, “ We began working
with the country absolutely denuded of everything ”
(April 4, 1903. Cd. 1551, p. 4).
In the Concentration Camps, imitated from those of
the execrated Spanish General, prisoners were fed at
the rate of four pence, three pence, two pence, three
half-pence a day : in one case the cost of the ration fell
to one-third of a penny a day. The children died like
flies: 15,000 perished miserably. At least 15,000: the
Returns published by the Government are incomplete,
but they admit so much.
Where are the protests of the Churches against these
infamies?
When the horrors of the Camps were
known ; when from the figures published by the Go
vernment we learnt that over 5,000 children had
perished in them ; months after the dreadful facts had
impelled the Government to send out a Commission of
ladies to inspect the Camps—after all this Canon Knox
Little dared to write, on October 29, 1901 : “Among
the unexampled efforts of kindness and leniency made
throughout this war for the benefit of the enemy, none
have surpassed the formation of the Concentration
Camps ’’ (“ Times,’’ October 31). A few days later,
on November 10, the Bishop of Chester referred in
a sermon to the life and work of Alfred the Great. After
eulogising his chivalry towards the wife and children of
a foe, the Bishop said, “ we might humbly, though
gratefully, think our nation was walking worthily of
our great King, when in South Africa we were doing all
that in us lay to minister care and comfort and health,
through overwhelming disadvantages, to the women
and children of our opponents, the Boers ’’ (“ Times,’’
November 11).
Somewhat earlier (see “Times,’’
August 23 and September 25), the Bishop of Liverpool,
as we have seen, defended the burning of farms and
villages, the formation of Concentration Camps, and
the Proclamation of Lord Kitchener requiring the Boers
to surrender by a given day. The “ Morning Leader ’’
of October 22, 1901, gave the result of an appeal to
8,000 clergymen of all denominations living in London,
�(
3«
)
and within a radius of about 80 miles. This was done
by means of a post-card summarising “ the official sta
tistics about tbe mortality among the children in the
Concentration Camps. The post-card contained no ex
pression of opinion, but concluded with a suggestion
that it might be the duty of the Churches to intervene
to save the remaining children from extermination, and
a question as to whether the subject might not be worth
a pulpit reference.” A certain number, not stated, re
plied to the card. Of the replies received this summary
was given :—Roughly, 55 per cent, of our correspon
dents are abusive, 14 per cent, argue with more or less
courtesy against our view of the facts, exactly the same
number agree with us, and undertake to speak to their
congregations ; the rest are interrogative and uncertain.
One reverend gentlemen regrets his inability to assault
us, and another would like to ‘ lynch ’ us and ‘ wreck
our office ’. ”
Have any of those who uttered panegyrics of the war
expressed contrition now that they certainly know what
thev were supporting? If any such have been pub
lished, we have failed to find them.
A long time ago, Herod, in pursuit of his political
aims, slew certain children. The voice of lamentation
and weeping heard in Rama has sounded through the
ages. Herod slew but a score of children at the most,
but from his day to ours his name has been a mark for
the execration of mankind.
Christian Churches have
set apart the 28th of December as a day devoted to the
memory of these Innocents. A service is always held
on that day in Westminster Abbey.
In December,
1900, some of the terrible facts of our war upon women
and children were known.
On Innocents’ Dav Dean
Bradlev preached a sermon in the Abbey. Here was a
great opportunitv. He said : “ Thev felt sure that the
souls of these infants were very dear in the sight of their
Father in Heaven.” But the infants he had in mind
were not the victims of our lust of territory and gold,
but the poor score or so slain by Herod. The celebra
tion of Innocents’ Dav will soon come round again.
Beforehand, we invite the preacher on the occasion,
whosoever he may be, to deal faithfully with us ; to
leave aside Herod, crushed as he is beneath countless
anathemas, and to address himself to the facts of our
own time. Let him tell us with all the eloquence he can
�(
39
)
command how their Father in Heaven regards our
slaughter of 15,000 Innocents.
For sooner or later we have got to take to heart con
sideration of the crimes committed in that hideous time.
The day will come when we shall tire of presenting free
doms and erecting statues to the Generals who then
blotted for ever the good name of England. The coun
try will turn with gratitude to those men who in the
senate or in the pulpit dared to speak for justice and
the honour of the land. In the pulpit not a few were
found who did what they could to save England’s
honour. Their task was difficult indeed. They were
often told that they represented “ a contemptible
minority of a minority.” They were “ anaemic, hysteri
cal, effeminate.” A brave soul who then stood firm to
his principles might hear unmoved the crash of brick
bats through his windows : he might remain calm under
vulgar and brutal insults, even when hurled at him from
the bench by Mr. Justice Grantham. But it was hard to
witness the defection of a congregation, to endure the
disruption of old ties, the severance of old friendships.
Here is a typical case on which we stumbled in look
ing for the report of an address :—
“ During the service yesterday morning at Brunswick
Wesleyan Church, Whitby, the minister, the Rev. T.
Hitchon, announced that a form of petition to the Go
vernment,. urging a peaceful settlement of the Trans
vaal question, on the ground that there was no reason
for going to war, and also urging the Government to
submit the whole of the matters in dispute to arbitration
on the lines suggested by The Hague Peace Conference,
was awaiting the signatures of the congregation in the
vestry.
Immediately the reverend gentlemen had
finished speaking, a wealthy member of the congrega
tion, Mr. Harrison Baxter, a managing steamship
owner, rose, and in a voice which could be heard all
over the building, shouted : * You had better put it in
the fire!’ At the close of the service some prominent
members of the church gathered together in the vestry,
and expressed great indignation that such a petition
should have been submitted to them. . . . The draft of
the petition—which had been signed by only five per
sons—somehow or other altogether disappeared in the
excitement.”—“Times,” October 9, 1899.
He did but ask for “ a peaceful settlement
he did
�(
4°
)
but ask that difficulties should be solved by arbitration
instead of by the sword, and “ somehow or other the
petition altogether disappeared.” What does the loudvoiced “steamship owner,” what do the “prominent
members of the Church ” think of the matter to-day?
What do the like of them all over England now think ?
And the five whose humble petition was so rudely
thrust aside? Little as they knew it, they were that
day pleading for the lives of 15,000 Innocents.
They,
too, might ask, humbly, wonderingly, as in the most
touching and beautiful of all parables : “ Lord, when
saw we Thee an hungered, and fed Thee? Or when
saw we Thee sick or in prison and came unto Thee?”
To them also would the answer be given : “ Inasmuch
as ye have done it unto one of the least of these My
brethren, ye have done it unto Me.”
Printed by A. Bonner,
16-2
Took's Court, London, E.C.
�The distress now existing as the result of the war is
appalling.
The Rev. A. Winter, at Hartebeestfontein, Transvaal,
writes : “ The damage to church property alone amounts
to more than ^6,000. The village resembles a city of
the dead. The inhabitants have simply nothing to eat.
To satisfy their hunger, people eat roots, onions, and
berries.
The children catch little birds for food, and
on the sallow, emaciated faces, hunger is plainly in
scribed.”
During the war many thousands of children became
orphans. Subscriptions can be sent to Rev. A. P. Kriel,
Langlaagte, Johannesburg, who has an Orphanage.
Georgiana M. Solomon, Hon. President, South African
Women’s Federation, c/o Editor of “ South African
News,” Cape Town, makes an earnest appeal for help.
“ Numerous widows in the country districts, once amply
provided for, are without the necessaries of life.”
“ Some had not clothing to cover them.”
“ I had the honour to visit in their homes some of the
heroic women who spanned their own bodies into the
ploughs, in yokes of nine women to draw each plough. ”
There exists no household treasure, no comfort is to be
seen. “ Yet the ancient virtue of hospitality is still to
the fore among these noble people. ” ‘ ‘ Said an old Boer
of the upper class with a smile : ‘ That we only need six
feet of our own veld after all when the call comes to
enter upon our inheritance
11 It was pitiful to wit
ness the unsupplied needs of invalids, little children, and
babes, for whom there is no milk. I could make this
letter unreadable by describing what I know.” The
people are miles and miles away from a railway, and
absolutely nothing is done for them by the Govern
ment. We stole or destroyed everything.
�Cbe Pete flge.
A Democratic Review of
Politics, Religion and Literature.
ADVOCATES
Economic Reform : Taxation of Land Values; z
Public Ownership of Public Services.
Social Reform : All Educational Institutions
supported by public money to be controlled
by authorities popularly elected for that pur
pose ; Suppression of the Liquor Traffic.
Political Reform : Adult Suffrage and Pay
ment of Members of Parliament and Official
Election Expenses.
Foreign Policy Reform: International Rela
tions governed by the Commandment—
“ That ye love one another.”
All earnest Political and Social Reformers
should support
THE
NEW AGE.
Every Thursday.
One Penny.
r & 2, Took's Court, Furnival Street, London. E C.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The churches and the South African War : "lest we forget"
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Marks, Alfred
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 40 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Inscription in ink, inside front cover: Arbitrator Jan. 1911. Some marginal markings in ink. Back cover has advertisement for The new age, a democratic review of politics, religion and literature. Printed by A. Bonner, 1 & 2 Took's Court, London, E.C. Published anonymously. Author believed to be Alfred Marks. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
"New Age" Office
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1905
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N086
N482
Subject
The topic of the resource
South African War, 1899-1902
Christianity
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The churches and the South African War : "lest we forget"), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
NSS
South African War