The Ottoman Empire Becomes an International Question
By P. T. Magan
P. T. MAGAN
My last article in the REVIEW was entitled “England’s Advent in the Eastern Question.” It was shown that this began in the days of Empress Catherine II, of Russia, and of William Pitt, Britain’s great commoner. Proof was given to substantiate the claim that England has for years made the existence of the Turkish empire a matter of her own vital policy. In fact, the policy to keep Turkey in Europe has been one common to every political party which has held the reins of power at Westminster for more than a century. As already stated, this policy was first broached in the days of Catherine and Pitt.
In 1807 there was war again between Russia and Turkey, and in 1809 the Russians were defeated at Silistria. The war was closed by the treaty of Bucharest in 1812, which fixed the river Pruth as the boundary between the two countries.
Next in the near Eastern question came the war for the independence of the Greeks. This time the British lion and the Russian bear fought side by side and hand in hand. It was Britain who led the van in establishing the independence of Greece, and she seemingly abandoned her position of protector of the Turk. But this was at a time when all England, and, in fact, the world stood aghast at the horrible atrocities which had been perpetrated by the Turks between 1821 and 1827.
The moment Canning died, however, the real temper of the British ministry was betrayed in that famous sentence of a king’s speech which declared that the destruction of a Turkish fleet at Navarino was an “untoward event.” (See Allison, “History of Europe,” Vol. IV, page 128.) Again, it must be remembered that the only reason why Russia joined Great Britain and France in the movement for the liberation of the Greeks was because the movement “partially dismembered” the Turkish empire, and was a precedent that Russia could use to good advantage later on.
Only a few years elapsed, however, and Russia was at war with Turkey again. In 1828-29 she had the Ottomans beaten, and dictated her own terms of peace under the walls of Constantinople. This time, England, under Wellington, the Iron Duke, was on the very “point of interfering.” “Although she did not actually do so, yet the sight of a Russian army and of a Russian fleet triumphant on the Bosporus, deepened and confirmed the most natural suggestions of anxiety for the future.”
In 1832 the now almost perennial Turkish question was up again. This time it was brought to the flashing-point by Mohammed Ali, the khedive of Egypt. He was one of the most powerful of the feudatories of the sultan. He quarreled with Abdullah Pasha, the governor of Saint Jean d’ Acre. His adopted son, Ibrahim, at the head of a powerful army, marched into Syria, “without consulting the Turkish sultan.” “Mahmoud, the sultan, commanded peace between the belligerents, and ordered Ibrahim to return to Egypt. Ibrahim disobeyed, and captured the Syrian forts, Gaza, Jaffa, and Caiffa. In May, he reduced Acre to a heap of ruins, and finally starved it into submission. He now determined to conquer all Syria; and the capture of Damascus, together with a great victory on the banks of the Orontes, enabled him to advance as far as Antioch. There again he routed the Turkish army, and opened the road to Constantinople. The sultan made one more effort, and sent out a force of sixty thousand men under Reshid Pasha, who was entirely defeated at Konieh on the twenty-first of December.” — Rambaud, “History of Russia,” Vol. III, chap. 3, par. 4.
In her distress Turkey then appealed to the powers. For the time being her old friend, England, seems to have been napping. Czar Nicholas I, of Russia, seized the opportunity, and offered to help the sultan, who, being in desperate straits, accepted the proffered aid. The Russian general Muravieff was sent to Alexandria to co-operate with the Austrian consul in persuading the khedive to put an end to hostilities. Not much came of this, however, and Mahmoud “summoned the Russians.” “A fleet from Sebastopol anchored at the mouth of the Bosporus; fifteen thousand men disembarked on the coast of Asia, and another force of twenty-four thousand strong advanced to the Pruth.”
But this was entirely too much for the British government, which awakened out of its slumber with a start. “Frightened at this intervention,” Lord Ponsonby and Admiral Ronsin, the English and French ambassadors, “pointed out to the sultan the danger of letting Russia gain a footing in the heart of the empire. It would be better, they said, to capitulate to his rebellious subjects.” To these advisers the sultan harkened, and the result was “the withdrawal of the Russian forces.” See Rambaud, Id.; also “Historians’ History of the World,” Vol. XXIV, subject “The Revolt of Mohammed Ali.”
Even then things did not quiet down as was expected. Very soon a rumor began to go around that the Russian count, Orloff, had concluded with the Ottoman government the now famous treaty of Unkiar-Skelessi. This treaty was signed in June, 1833, and, “under the appearance of an offensive and defensive alliance, established the dependence of Turkey on Russia. Each of the two contracting parties agreed to furnish the other the aid necessary ‘to secure the tranquillity of its states.’ The later stipulation might, in such a distracted country as Turkey, involve a permanent occupation by the Russian forces.
“The true significance of the treaty was contained in an additional secret article by which the sultan undertook, in case Russia were attacked, to close the Dardanelles, and to admit no foreign ships of war, on any pretext whatsoever, to pass through them; while on the other hand the czar agreed to spare his ally the trouble and expense of giving him military aid. England and France protested loudly, but subsequent events prevented the execution of the treaty.” — Rambaud, Id., pars. 5, 6.
In 1839 the Turkish government again declared war against Mohammed Ali and his adopted son, Ibrahim Pasha, with the purpose in view of winning back Syria to the Star and Crescent flag. But Ibrahim Pasha was again victorious. Just at this time Sultan Mahmoud died. A sixteen-year-old boy was his successor, and for Turkey things were in a bad way.
It would seem that the natural conclusion of the whole affair ought to have been that Syria should remain a province of Egypt, and that the Turks would simply have lost this much of their territory. But this was not to be. It was very clear to some of the powers that they must act. If they did not, Turkey must certainly come to an end, and no one profit by the event except the Russians. This, however, could only result in “a general European war.” This, to the powers, meant Armageddon.
In order that this might not be, there was once more put into practise the old policy of helping Turkey, only with this great difference; to wit, that that which heretofore was a policy merely, now became a part of the international law of Europe. What happened is finely told by one who is not only an erudite historian, but also a statesman,—a man who for many years was one of the most brilliant sons of Ireland in the British Parliament at Westminster. Says McCarthy:—
*“It was evident that Turkey was not able to hold her own against the formidable Mohammed and his successful son; and the policy of the western powers of Europe and of England especially, had long been to maintain the Ottoman empire a necessary part of the common state system. The policy of Russia was to keep up that empire as long as it suited her own purpose; to take care that no other power got anything out of Turkey; and to prepare the way for such a partition of the spoils of Turkey as would satisfy Russian interests. Russia, therefore, was to be found now defending7Turkey, now assailing her. The course taken by Russia was seemingly inconsistent; but it was only inconsistent as the course of a sailing ship may be which now tacks to this side and now to that, but has a clear object in view and a port to reach all the time. England was then, and for a long time after, steadily bent on preserving the Turkish empire, and in a great measure as a rampart against the schemes and ambitions imputed to Russia herself. France was less firmly set on the maintenance of Turkey; and France, moreover, had got it into her mind that England had designs of her own in Egypt. Austria was disposed to go generally with England; Prussia was little more than a nominal sharer in the alliance which was now tinkered up. It is evident that such an alliance could not be very harmonious or direct in its action. It was, however, effective enough to prove too strong for the pasha of Egypt. A fleet made up of English, Austrian, and Turkish vessels bombarded Acre; an allied army drove the Egyptians from their strongholds. Ibrahim Pasha, with all his courage and genius, was not equal to the odds against which he now saw himself forced to contend. He had to succumb. No one could doubt that he and his father were incomparably better able to give good government and the opportunity for development to Syria than the Porte had ever been. But in this instance, as in others, the odious principle was upheld by England and her actual allies that the Turkish empire must be maintained, at no matter what cost of suffering and degradation to its subject populations. Mohammed Ali was deprived of all his Asiatic possessions, but was secured in his government of Egypt.—Justin McCarthy, “History of Our Own Times,” Vol. I, chap. 9, par. 9.
Now the actual method of helping the Turks, the precise manner in which this policy became a part of the international law of Europe, was, first, that “the four great powers, in a collective note of July 27, 1839, declared that they would take the settlement of the Eastern question into their own hands.”“Russia, not to be left entirely out, had to support the convention, and give her consent as a fifth power.” And this state of affairs was officially expressed in a quadruple treaty, that of London, July 15, 1840. Thus did the Turkish question become a part of the international law of Europe. Thus did the policy of helping the Turk to maintain himself in his European dominions become one which the great powers considered necessary for the preservation of the peace of the world.
Madison, Tenn.
Practise Better Than Preaching
PRAYERS will not save a sinner
Unless they are linked with deeds
That shall help to raise the fallen,
And touch their bitter needs.
You may preach on a thousand Sabbaths;
But as long as you turn away
From the poor souls all about you,
What use to preach or pray?
Go to the sinful and needy,
Give them a helping hand;
Practise is better than preaching
For them to understand.
The prayers of the whole world's preachers,
The sighs of all its saints,
Unless good deeds go with them,
Will never reach sin’s complaints.
— Selected.
GEORGE E. TACK
By George E. Tack
Music
GEORGE E. TACK
Or ever morning stars their anthems sang,
Or throngs angelic waked the ecstatic lyre,
Whose voice sang love’s praise with poesy’s fire,
Immortal music’s notes through heaven rang.
Eternity its glorious beauty knew,
And through its raptured soul the wondrous sound
In waves harmonious flowed to time’s brief bound,
And to its lovely temple votaries drew.
There life’s great symphonies out-breathed their souls;
The listening air, throughout each court and grove,
Caught sweetly and flung back the blithe bird bliss;
The bell-toned fountain laughter; pealing rolls
Of thunder-clouds. Lo, music is but this:
Sweet echoes of the rhythmic pulse of love.
Baltimore, Md.
Dangers of the Drinking-Cup
By D. H. Kress
D. H. KRESS, M. D.
A few weeks ago I observed on the train a man who appeared to be in the last stages of consumption; he had an open abscess in his throat; and, in spite of the notice, “Ten Dollars’ Fine for Spitting on the Floor,” was expectorating freely. After a time he went to the drinking-fountain, and took the cup between his lips to drink. Later two young children and a well-dressed, intelligent-looking woman went to the same fountain, and drank from the same cup.
I do not know whether or not these cups are ever washed, but probably they are not. No doubt hundreds, perhaps thousands, of persons have drunk from this particular cup by this time.
Could we have examined the rim of the cup which was transferred from the lips of this tubercular patient to the lips of the other passengers, we should, by the aid of the microscope, have discovered great numbers of bacteria of various kinds, among them, no doubt, the germs of tuberculosis.
Drinking-cups in public schools have been found to contain as many as five million germs about that part of the rim likely to be touched by the lips in drinking. In one spot not larger than a pin’s head over one thousand have been discovered. By careful investigation it was found that thirty-seven per cent of the drinking-cups ordinarily used in public places have tubercle bacilli adhering to the rim.
Unsuspected persons may convey these germs. Dr. Parks, of New York, found tubercular germs in the mouths of nine out of fifteen persons who were in apparent good health. These were all capable of communicating the germs to some one possessing less vital resistance.
The examination of one hundred thousand schoolchildren in Chicago, Cincinnati, Philadelphia, New York City, Boston, and one hundred smaller places, would indicate that there are in the United States two million boys and girls with diseased and infected tonsils or enlarged and infected glands of the neck. The infection in all these cases no doubt took place through the mouth.
By the study of over nine thousand convalescents by the Massachusetts and Minnesota State boards of health, and by seven other bacteriologists, it was found that diphtheria germs remain in the mouth or throat for more than a month after recovery has taken place. It has been estimated that probably half a million of the inhabitants of this country carry in the mouth or throat typical diphtheria bacilli.
Germs of catarrh, of an ordinary cold, and of influenza, as well as a host of other bacteria, may be found in the mouth, nose, or throat of unsuspected persons. These bacteria do injury only in cases where an abrasion occurs to the mucous membrane by picking the nose, or where the tonsils and mucous membrane of the throat are inflamed and congested. Lowered vitality forms an open gateway for them to enter the tissues and the circulation.
Decayed teeth not merely harbor and cultivate bacteria, but frequently entrance through them is gained by germs to the body. The glands of the neck usually become infected through these two avenues.
More than three fourths of the tubercular subjects in the United States mingle with the public during the first half-year of their illness. Those having catarrh, colds, and influenza, and others recovering from more serious maladies, are constantly with us. None of these are debarred from using the common drinking-cup. Through one such cup a whole family, school, or community may become infected. No doubt many of the epidemic diseases, which were formerly thought to be due to mere contact, may be attributed to the common drinking-cup.
In some States the common drinking-cup has been abolished. Any one going8from New York to Boston has no difficulty in determining when the State of Massachusetts is entered. As soon as the State line is crossed, the cups are gathered up, and the thirsty passenger has to quench his thirst as best he can. Many carry with them individual cups. Paper cups are sometimes furnished. In the absence of these, ordinary envelopes may be used.
In case it is necessary to use an ordinary drinking-cup, do not place the lips on the rim, but put both lips into the water, placing the rim tightly against the skin below the lower lip. This is the safest way to drink, not merely out of the common drinking-cup, but also out of cups furnished at restaurants or soda-fountains. No cup is safe to drink out of unless it has been sterilized. By following the suggestion given above, however, many epidemics of colds and of influenza, as well as of more serious maladies, may be avoided.
Takoma Park, D. C.
Do Not Be Discouraged
NEVER let us be discouraged with ourselves. It is not when we are conscious of our faults that we are most wicked; on the contrary, we are less so. We see by a brighter light. Let us remember, for our consolation, that we never perceive our sins till we begin to cure them.—Fénelon.
For Husbands and Wives
By Margaret E. Sangster
Don’t's for Husbands
DON’T, my friend, play fast and loose with happiness by ceasing to pay the little attentions to your wife, which came from you so constantly in the days when you were courting her. Don’t take her love so much for granted that you display yours chiefly in the privacy of the domicile, criticizing her brus[k]ly in the presence of acquaintances, forgetting to lift your hat when you meet her on the street, stalking in front of her instead of allowing her to precede you, and permitting her to carry her own bundles. I have seen a man who would cheerfully have died for his wife, were that necessary, transgress day by day every rule of courtesy. His customary demeanor to her was so impolite that her pride was deeply hurt. The woman does not exist who enjoys being treated with the slightest discourtesy by her husband in the presence of outside people. This rule has no exceptions; and whether the outsiders be kindred, neighbors, or chance acquaintances, is of no importance.
Don’t find fault with the meals. If you happen to sit down to the table in a mood of unrest due to the worries of the day, bring to bear upon the situation precisely the self-control that would carry you triumphantly through a dinner at which you were a guest away from home. When a beautifully prepared meal is on the table, pay your wife a compliment.
Happiness in Trifles
Don’t in any sense of the word be negligent of your wife, while you show yourself considerate of some one else,—a guest beneath the roof, a pretty girl visitor, or a relative of your own, who is perhaps disposed to take advantage of earlier claims, and monopolize your company. Every one of these items may be set down to heedlessness, and does not interfere with the fact that you are in the main a good husband, a generous provider, and a man whose integrity and honor are not to be impeached. “It is the little rift within the lute that by and by will make the music mute;” and far too many men never ascertain, until it is too late, that the happiness of women depends far more upon little trifles that seem as nothing in the day’s work, than upon the devotedness shown upon great occasions.
A Few Do’s and Don’t’s for Wives
Dear young wives, my first don’t to you is concerned with your new dignity of wifehood. Do not altogether abandon or forget the beautiful reserve which was yours as a maiden. Don’t permit yourself to seem common earthenware where hitherto you have been fine porcelain. Don’t omit the courteous reception and the gracious welcome which you accorded your lover when the lover becomes your husband. Don’t suffer yourself to look like a frump or a dowdy. Do take pains with your hair and your toilet, the daintiness of your gowns, and the neatness of your shoes.
Don’t take other people into your confidence if John offends you. Neither your mother, your aunt, your college chum, your dearest girl friend, nor the agreeable stranger whom you met the other day, should be the recipient of your grievances, if you have them. Your home should be a sanctuary, inviolate from profanation, and remember that it is profaned when you complain to some one else of John’s ill temper, his neglect, or his parsimony. The instant a wife permits herself to complain of her husband to people beyond her door, she breaks down a barrier, and makes a way for every sort of trouble to enter the field of home.
Whatever you do, don’t nag or sulk. A wife who goes about with the air of a martyr winter-kills her happiness. Don’t be inconsolable when your husband tarries late at the office, and keeps the dinner waiting. Don’t object to his bringing home guests unannounced. If they arrive with him unexpectedly, don’t apologize for the house or the meal or the children or anything else. Put on extra plates and cups, and let them share “pot luck.”
Don’t have bills. Pay as you go, and persuade your husband to give you a definite housekeeping allowance from the beginning of your housekeeping.
Don’t reprove John when he brings you a box of bonbons or a flower. Receive gifts, on the contrary, with an expression of gratitude.
Don’t be so absorbed in the children that their father gets little of your company, and only a fragment of your attention. The babies may need you, but John needs you quite as much. Don’t be vexed if you have to prompt the good man’s memory as to birthdays and anniversaries. Don’t freeze him by depression; and if you wish him to love your mother and father, and make them welcome in the home, see to it that you have at all times a ready welcome for his people when they visit you.—Margaret E. Sangster, in Woman’s Home Companion.
A Tree Full of Bible Lore
A STUDENT of Holy Writ has composed Biblical statistics in this novel form:— The Bible contains 3,566,480 letters, 810,697 words, 31,175 verses, 1,189 chapters, and 66 books. The longest chapter is the 119th psalm; the shortest and middle chapter, the 117th psalm. The middle verse is the 8th of the 118th psalm. The longest name is in the 8th chapter of Isaiah. The word “and” occurs 46,627 times; the word “Lord” 1,855 times. The 37th chapter of Isaiah and the 19th chapter of the Second Book of Kings are alike. The longest verse is the 9th of the 8th chapter of Esther; the shortest verse is the 35th of the 11th chapter of John. In the 1st verse of the 7th chapter of Ezra is the alphabet. The finest piece of reading is the 26th chapter of Acts. The name of God is not mentioned in the Book of Esther. It contains knowledge, wisdom, holiness, and love. — Household Journal.
The Home
THE home is more than a shelter, more than a museum, more than a place for eating and sleeping, and more than a furniture warehouse. It is the repository of joys and sorrows, the asylum from the whole world outside, for the family that dwells within its gates. Two persons have chosen each other as life comrades, and between them they have made a home. If you would have happiness in this closest and most sacred relation, a relation which ought to be permanent and sacramental, avoid the first quarrel. If there never is a first, there will never be a second. Resolve, if there is friction, to keep it to yourselves, and, commonplace as the counsel is, do not let a quarrel last overnight. Life is too uncertain, too full of risks, and there are too many possible heartaches for the most fortunate, to make it safe for wife and husband ever to part in anger. Though the parting be but for a day, let it be in peace and love.
On the whole, those whose means are moderate, who must work together, plan together, and save together, are to be congratulated. Great wealth is the lot, after all, of the minority. In this country, at least, it is beset by temptations which do not confront those whose earning and spending are matters of serious thought. Entire confidence as to home finance, and equal privileges in the management of the common income, will go far toward the prevention of unseemly disputes.—Selected.
Widowhood in India
By EDITH E. BRUCE
EDITH E. BRUCE
One evil begets another; and as a result of the awful practise of child marriage in India, we have an army of twenty-six million widows. The widows of India are equal to one half the population of the German empire. One woman out of every six in India is a widow. In 1901 there were 391,147 widows under the age of fifteen; 115,285 under ten, and 19,487 under five years of age, besides 1,064 baby-widows under twelve months old. Bengal, India's largest province, with an area of 151,185 square miles, has 9,567 widows under five years of age, and 528 under one year. It would take volumes to depict the misery hidden in these figures.
Here, again, we see the contrast between the true and the false religion. With what tender compassion were widows regarded by our Heavenly Father, as he gave definite instruction to the children of Israel in regard to them! “Ye shall not afflict any widow, or fatherless child. If thou afflict them in any wise, and they cry at all unto me, I will surely hear their cry; and my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless.” Ex. 22: 22-24.
All through the Old and the New Testament the widow is looked upon with mercy and pity. Job pleaded his own righteousness by saying, “I caused the widow’s heart to sing for joy.” Job 29: 13. James writes: “Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.” James 1: 27.
The Hindu religion brings no hope or comfort to the unfortunate widow. Believing in the transmigration of the soul, and holding woman at such a low standard, the Hindus take it for granted that whatever calamity befalls the son is the result of sin committed by his wife in some former incarnation, though she may, at the time of his death, be a mere babe. Therefore she is abhorred, degraded in person, and reproached with such terms as only the cruelty of ignorance and superstition can utter. She is powerless. Custom, society, and public opinion are against her. If she is yet a child in her father’s house, and remains there, the love and affection of the mother may soften and mollify the evil effects of superstition. But if she is in the father-in-law’s house, her trouble begins at the very hour of the husband’s death. Mingled with the lamentations of the family, are reproaches and even curses for the widow. This attitude toward her does not cease as the first outbreak of grief subsides, but lasts through all her lifetime. Her ornaments, which mean so much to the ignorant, darkened mind of the Hindu woman, are rudely snatched off, never to be worn by her again.
A BENGALI WIDOW, ONLY SIX YEARS OLD
The village barber is called, and in no gentle manner her long hair is shorn from her head, and she must have her head shaved every ten days. On her forehead certain vermilion marks, indications of the glory of the married state, must no more appear. Her pleasant attire is taken away, and replaced by coarse white clothing without border or trimming. She is made a household drudge, despised and scorned by family and neighbors. She must now get up very early in the morning, even before the family servants, to bring water from the well. It is bad luck to meet her on the way. She must not sleep on any easy couch. She must have but one meal a day, and that of the coarsest food; and twice during the month she must make a complete fast of twenty-four hours, not even taking a drink of water.
If there is a wedding or any festivity in the house, she must not be present, lest she bring her own ill-fortune into the lot of others. In all civilized countries there is a law to protect children, feeble-minded persons, and animals; but in India the cruel customs of a heathen religion take an innocent, helpless child, without her consent, yea, without her being old enough even to realize what is being done, and give her in marriage perhaps to a gray-headed man, or perchance to a little boy. Then, if he dies, she must remain his widow for life, subject to all the cruel tortures imaginable, and the law is powerless to help her.
In all cases except those directly connected with life and death, the British government is bound, according to the treaties concluded with the inhabitants of India, not to interfere with the former’s social and religious customs and laws; judicial decisions are given accordingly. The duties of a widow are thus described in the Hindu code of Manu: “At her pleasure let her emaciate her body by living on pure flowers, roots, and fruits; but she must never even mention the name of another man after her husband has died. Until death let her be patient of hardships, self-controlled, and chaste, and strive to fulfil that most excellent duty prescribed for wives who have one husband only.” “In reward of such conduct, a female who controls her thoughts, speech, and action, gains in this life highest renown [?], and in the next world a place near her husband.”
By this code it is plainly seen that there is but one place where the Hindu woman can be independent of her husband, and that is in perdition. The most cruel, repellant custom taught by the Hindu religion was the suttee, whereby a wife could ascend the funeral pyre of her husband, and perish in the flames with his dead body. Though this practise was not universal in India, and not taught by the Vedas, it was greatly encouraged, and history states that many lives were given in this way. In a radius of thirty miles around Calcutta, three hundred women thus offered up their lives within six months. Little girls no more than nine years old, went through this most dreadful torture. It is said that if, when the flames began to rage, they flinched or tried to escape, they were held down with bamboo poles. In many instances several wives were immolated at the same time. At the close of the last century a Kulin Brahman died three miles from Serampore, near Calcutta. He had married more than forty wives, of whom twenty-two died before him. At his obsequies a great fire was prepared, into which the remaining eighteen threw themselves, leaving more than forty children. Happily, the suttee is a thing of the past. By a government decree dated Dec. 4, 1829, it was declared illegal. This, in time, put a stop to it. Cruel as this torture was, the living torture of the widow is such to-day that many would gladly return to this custom, preferring to suffer for a few moments the agonies of death in the flames than to spend a lifetime of misery in the home of the father-in-law. The conditions and feelings of the Hindu widow are vividly portrayed by the following prayer offered by a pupil of a British zenana10missionary, one of the few Hindu women who can read or write, and one who has been a widow from childhood:—“O Lord, hear my prayer! No one has turned an eye on the oppression that we poor women suffer, though with weeping and crying and desire we have turned to all sides, hoping that some one might save us. . . . O Lord, inquire into our case! For ages dark ignorance has brooded over our minds and spirits; we are like prisoners in an old, moldering house, choked and buried in the dust of custom, and we have no strength to get out. All-knowing God, hear our prayer! Forgive our sins and give us power to escape, that we may see something of thy world. O Father, when shall we be set free from this jail? We have not for one day, no, not even in our dreams, seen thy world; to us it is nothing but a name. We see only the four walls of the house. Shall we call them the world, or India? We have been born in this jail, we have died here, and are dying. O Father of the world! hast thou not created us? or hast perchance some other god made us? Dost thou care for men only? Hast thou no thought for women? Why hast thou created us male and female? O Almighty! hast thou not power to make us other than we are, that we, too, might have some share in the comfort of this life? O God, almighty and unapproachable! think upon thy mercy, which is a vast sea, and remember us. Save us, for we can not bear our hard lot; many of us have killed ourselves, and are still killing ourselves. God of mercy, our prayer to thee is this, That the curse may be removed from the women of India. Create in the heart of man some sympathy, that our lives may no longer be passed in vain longing; that, saved by thy mercy, we may taste something of the joys of life.”
The above is a prayer of a high-caste Hindu lady, who has been taught of God in her home by a missionary. She is not allowed beyond her own threshold. While the low-caste widow is compelled to work, perhaps carrying brick and mortar on the street, yet in this she has the advantage of the open air, though her life is spent in drudgery.
We can not imagine the suffering of the widows of India; but as we look upon it, our hearts grow sick, and we are led to ask, What can we do? Our loving Heavenly Father is not unmindful of their cry, and he has said, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.” That “every” takes in the twenty-six million widows of India; and the gospel of Jesus Christ alone will bring light and joy into their hearts, dispelling doubt, gloom, and superstition. O for more missionaries to enter these darkened prisons! O for more means to rescue these little ones from cruelty, and place them under the sweet influence of the gospel!
Fathers, mothers, have you already made your greatest sacrifice? Can you spare just a little more to help bring to them blighted lives the message that is so dear to you? Do we really believe Jesus is soon coming? Do we want him to come? There is a mighty work to be done in India before he comes, and many are dying every day without a Saviour.
Let us pray and work and give as never before, that his kingdom may be hastened, and the time come when sin and sorrow shall be no more.
Calcutta.
Mission Notes
THE Barotseland Mission, South Africa, has one hundred acres of mealies (corn) planted. If rain comes soon, the workers will keep on planting. There has been very little rain so far this season, but the cotton fields are looking well. At each of the out-schools a small crop of cotton has been planted as an experiment.
DURING 1910 Spanish books to the value of nearly seventy thousand dollars were sold by the Pacific Press Publishing Association. This was three times more Spanish literature put out by this one publishing-house than it sold during 1909. Most of it was circulated in Mexico, although large shipments were sent to South America. Truly this is an evidence of the progress the message is making in dark Spanish fields.
AN accident caused the death of Laboana Kalaka, the fifteen-year-old son of our native teacher and interpreter at Emmanuel Mission, North Basutoland, South Africa. A number of children were playing around a heavy Cape cart, when it suddenly tipped backward, striking Laboana across the abdomen, causing his death seventeen hours later. He found great comfort in repeating over and over the twenty-third psalm. Brother H. C. Olmstead drew words of comfort for the sorrowing from the words of Jer. 31:16, 17. Over one hundred gathered in sympathy as this dear native boy was laid to rest on the mission grounds. We are glad that salvation’s story had been told Laboana, and that he believed.
THE workers in India united with us in observing the day of fasting and prayer, Sabbath, January 21. Brother J. L. Shaw wrote to the workers there this word: “India is just as near to heaven as America, or Europe, or any other country, and God is just as willing and able to give success to the workers in this field as in any other part of his vineyard. Caste and superstition will fall before us, as we unceasingly claim the promises of God.” This is as true of China, Africa, and all other mission fields as of India. God will work with consecrated hearts everywhere, and send to their help powerful angels of light and glory. But we must keep in touch with God by constant consecration.
SISTER E. R. WILLIAMS, of South Africa, speaking of the recent death of her husband, says she had just received a cheerful and encouraging letter from him, and was writing an answer to it, when the telegram came announcing his death. She says the Lord knew she was not strong enough to bear the shock alone, so he was with her to sustain. She was directed to 2 Kings 20:19, 20, for comfort. She believes her husband was prepared for his sudden death; and while the blow is a crushing one, she looks forward, with even more longing than ever before, to the time when Jesus shall come. The prayers of God’s people have been a great source of strength to this bereaved family during this time of deep sorrow.
MOHAMMEDANISM is fast spreading in the islands of the Pacific. This makes more difficult the warning of the isles with the last message of mercy to the world. Sister Lily M. Thorpe, speaking of the waiting islands, says: “There are myriads of islands waiting, waiting, and still waiting, stretching out their arms to heaven, and the voiceless cry goes up, ‘Who will help us?’ Banda, Ambon, Menado, the Moluccas, look to us for help. These islands must be entered with the third angel’s message. Borneo, the Celebes, Battakland, and southern Sumatra wait. And for what?—‘The isles shall wait for His law.’ Mission work has been done in these places, but the isles still wait for his law. The spider-like island of Celebes, with its teeming millions, still waits. The gigantic island of Borneo is still waiting. What shall we do? Shall we deem it too hard a cross to leave our comfortable homes, our friends, and the old associations which we love? The Master did more than this. There is only one thing to do,—act, act in the living present. The promise is, ‘The isles shall wait upon me, and on mine arm shall they trust.’ The climate in many of these places is good, and the nights are cool. Trading-vessels and tourist steamers call at all the principal islands and bays. The missionary is not now cut off so completely from the living, rushing world as he was twenty-five years ago, when steamers called only once, or at the most twice, in a year at many places, and then only if the weather permitted. If it was rough and stormy, the ship went on its way, carrying away the letters and food intended for the missionary. Such an experience of one missionary came under my notice. To-day, intercourse with the outside world can be kept up with comparative ease by the missionary who has left home and friends.”
Africa
“FROM Afric’s darkened shores am I;
Hark! hear ye not that mournful cry?
There human blood is daily shed,
And living souls are as the dead.
O, haste and help to free our land
From error’s dread, despotic hand!”
