historians have rivalled our own writers both in the determination to be just and in the desire to be generous.

It would not help our investigation to examine such works as John Andrews' 'History of the War with America, France, Spain, and Holland' (1785-6), published immediately after the cessation of hostilities, or the careful, and, in some respects, still authoritative History of the American War' (1794), by Charles Stedman, an American Loyalist who had been an officer in Howe's army. The first general historian to treat the subject was John Adolphus. He was born in 1768, and was therefore fifteen years old at the time of the Peace of Versailles; and he published in 1802 three volumes on the History of England from 1760 to 1783.' Adolphus lived too near the events to avoid all traces of bitter feeling, but his general attitude is expressed in one of his early remarks about the opposition to the Stamp Act:

"The inhabitants of great part of North America were strongly imbued with the spirit of liberty which characterises the natives of Britain, from whom they derived their origin, and with that jealous irritability which is the companion and best guard of uncontaminated freedom.'

Adolphus' sympathies were modified by his insistence on the strictly legal position and by his dependence on Stedman's book. He himself shared the opinion of Josiah Tucker that, as 'the expense of the contest would more than countervail all the advantages to be derived from an enforced and sullen submission,' it would have been best to grant independence at once; and he described Tucker's advice as no less wise than noble,' but 'utterly impracticable in a deliberative government.' He resented the execution of André and other incidents in the war; but the American reader may be satisfied with the words in which an Englishman, writing in 1802, spoke of General Washington:

'Perhaps no personal character ever stood on a more elevated point of view than that of Washington at this period [1783]. The triumph of the American cause was justly attributed to his perseverance, prudence, and judgment; and his self-denial formed a noble and dignified example, rarely paralleled.'

Lord Stanhope's History of England from the Peace of Utrecht' (1836-63), written from a Whig standpoint, definitely adopted the American cause :

'Happy (he says) had it been for England if the views of her Ministers at that period had expanded with her territory, and led them to treat their distant settlers not as lonely dependants, but rather as fellow-subjects and as freemen! Happy had they refrained from measures of aggression which -rashly urged in council, but feebly supported in war-have converted many once loyal and contented provinces into a rival empire!'

Macaulay, in reviewing Southey's Colloquies,' took the opportunity of remarking that Southey

'never speaks of the people of the United States with that pitiful affectation of contempt by which some members of his party have done more than wars or tariffs can do to excite mutual enmity between two communities formed for mutual friendship.'

Sir George Trevelyan, in his 'Early History of Charles James Fox' (1880) and in more recent works, has been more American than most recent Americans in his denunciation of the policy of the British Government. The Early History of Charles James Fox' appeared before the volumes of Mr Lecky's History of England in the 18th Century' (1878-1890) which treated of the American War; and, though Mr Lecky's object was to present what he regarded as a more balanced view than that of Sir George Trevelyan, his sympathy with essential points in the American contention was clearly expressed. Most important of all for the formation of general opinion were Macaulay's Essays' and J. R. Green's 'Short History,' for these books have, more than any others, influenced the writers of historical text-books, and, through them, successive generations of school children and young students. It is largely owing to the influence of Macaulay that we can say that, for at least fifty years, we have taught in our schools that the disasters of the years 1776-1783 were the deserved and inevitable results of an unwise policy; and that, whatever may be said from a purely legal or technical standpoint, our cause, in our quarrel with the Americans, was,

in the broad issues which alone are decisive in such a question, not a righteous cause.

་

This is the faith in which we and our fathers have been nurtured; and this early teaching explains no small part of the friendly feeling which we have entertained for our American kinsfolk since we can remember anything at all. They never pardon who have done the wrong' is not an invariable rule of human history. Even the few text-books which have taken a different line have done so with very emphatic reservations, and have conceded that in George Washington the Americans possess one of the great men of all times. In truth,' concludes one of these books, the best laurels reaped in this unsatisfactory contest were those which adorned the brow of George Washington.' Washington has been, for generations, a hero of British as well as of American boyhood; and those of us who were children when the Civil War had recently closed were taught a not less reverent admiration for Lincoln. Many of us were brought up on the books which described the careers of Lincoln's great associates; and 'From Log Cabin to White House' or 'From Tan Yard to White House' could be found in our small collections of treasured books.

In 1831, Washington Irving received an honorary degree from the University of Oxford, the first American to be enrolled among Oxford doctors. In 1902, the will of Cecil Rhodes multiplied a thousandfold the already numerous links between Oxford and the United States, links which are pleasantly recorded by the periodical publication, The American Oxonian,' mentioned at the head of this paper. The foundation of the American Rhodes Scholarships, which in the last fifteen years have made so many Anglo-American friendships, was a happy celebration of the unbroken sympathy which has existed, through all the changes and chances of political affairs, between the men of letters of this country and our American kinsfolk, from the days of Scott and Irving to those of Lowell, Tom Hughes, Leslie Stephen, and Lord Bryce.

ROBERT S. RAIT.

Art. 5.-HOW GERMANY TREATS THE NATIVE.

1. Reichstag: Stenographische Berichte. (Reports of Debates.) Norddeutsche Buchdruckerei.

2. Complaints of the Akwa Chiefs. (Reichstag, Aktenstücke, No. 323, vol. 241.) Norddeutsche Buchdruckerei. 3. Die Wahrheit über die Heidenmission und ihre Gegner. Von J. Scholze. Berlin: Süsserott, 1905.

4. Die Herero: ein Beitrag zur Landes- Volks- und Missions-Kunde. Von Missionär F. Irle. Gütersloh: Bortelsmann, 1906.

5. Elf Jahre Gouverneur in Deutsch-Südwestafrika. Von Theodor Leutwein, General-Major und Gouverneur, 3. D. Berlin; Mittler, 1906. 6. Geschichtliche und kulturelle Entwickelung unserer Schutzgebiete. Von J. K. Vietor. Berlin: Reimer, 1913. 7. The Germans and Africa. By Evans Lewin. With an Introduction by Earl Grey. Cassell, 1915.

8. Germany's vanishing Colonies. By Gordon Le Sueur. London: Everett, 1915.

9. L'Expansion allemande hors d'Europe.

nelat. Paris: Armand Colin, 1908.

Par E. Ton

AFTER alluding, in the preface to his book on German South-West Africa, to the faults and mistakes of the past,' General Leutwein says significantly, Let us learn in the first instance from both that, despite the higher position of the colonising race, the aim of a colonial policy on large lines must be the incorporation of the original people found in the acquired lands, and not their forcible oppression, still less their annihilation.' Though expressed with inevitable reserve, it would be impossible to find a truer or more forcible impeachment of the German colonial policy. Leutwein saw things as they really were, but was hampered and thwarted by Prussian ruthlessness. He believed in conciliating the natives and treating them fairly, and was convinced that the Herero rising could have been stopped after Waterberg; and that, when sufficient punishment had been meted out, wisdom as well as humanity suggested proffering reconciliation. His military successor, General von Trotha, a typical Prussian, held

quite other views, as evinced in his cruel and bombastic proclamation of Oct. 2, 1904.

"The Herero nation must now leave the country. If the people do not leave, I will compel them with the big tube. Within the German frontier every Herero, with or without a rifle, with or without cattle, will be shot. I will not take over any more women or children, but I will either drive them back to your people or have them fired on. These are my words to the nation of the Hereros.

'The great General of the Mighty Emperor,

'VON TROTHA.'

Though Leutwein would never have issued so brutal a proclamation, he was sufficiently imbued with the Prussian spirit of unscrupulousness, which holds that the end justifies the means, to reiterate constantly that, as there lacked troops to subdue the natives by force, it was justifiable, indeed praiseworthy, to take advantage of racial jealousies and differences, in order to incite the tribes to mutual extermination. That such was the opinion of a comparatively humane man, makes it possible to believe what, though well authenticated, is an otherwise almost incredible record of butchery and atrocities. Every item of evidence produced in this article has been carefully sifted; and for every crime recorded further evidence could be produced. We prefer to let the Germans be in the main their own accusers.

The idea of colonisation was strange to most Germans thirty years ago, and almost universally unpopular. Economic prosperity had increased; no outlet for a surplus population was needed; military ambition suggested keeping the man-power at home; and Bismarck had expressed himself, in almost scathing terms, as opposed on patriotic grounds to emigration. Gradually, however, colonisation came to be officially recognised as necessary to a rapacious Weltpolitik. There was comparatively little thought of making the colonies homes for settlers. With the exception of certain parts of South-West Africa, the climate of the Protectorates was suited only for independent native labour or for coloured labour under the direction of white men; and a census of immigrants shows that, even after thirty years of colonisation, the percentage of Europeans was Vol. 229.-No. 455.

2 c