mons, and this principle was definitely established in 1407. (Stubbs, "Const. Hist.," III: 62-63. A. and S., "Sel. Docs., doc. 112.) In 1593, 1625, and 1640 the Commons asserted in one form or another their privileges in matters of finance. In 1671 they resolved that "in all aids given to the King, by the Commons, the Rate or Tax ought not to be altered by the Lords." In 1678 they resolved that all supply bills ought to begin with the Commons. And that it is the undoubted and sole right of the Commons, to direct, limit, and appoint, in such Bills, the Ends, Purposes, Considerations, Conditions, Limitations, and Qualifications of such Grants; which ought not to be changed, or altered by the House of Lords." (Anson " Law and Custom of the Const.," I: 254. Lowell," Govt. of Eng.," I: 400.) Yet the right of the Lords to reject money bills as a whole, though seldom exercised, was not definitely called in question until 1860. In that year they rejected the bill of the Commons providing for the repeal of paper duties. The lower House at once protested against such action and the next year the repeal of the paper duties was forced upon the Lords by its inclusion in the annual tax bill. Since that time the "policy of including all the taxes in one bill has developed into a permanent practice, and under the name of the Finance Bill, this now includes all fiscal regulations relating both to the revenue and to the national debt." (Lowell, "Govt. of Eng.," I: 288. Feilden, "Short Const. Hist. of Eng.," 114-117, gives a brief summary of the growth of the privileges of the Commons in financial matters. A fuller account in Medley, " Manual of Eng. Const. Hist.," 232-242. Anson, "Law and Custom of the Const.," I: 252-257.)

(e) The final and logical step is again in the present. In 1908 appeared the following statement in Lowell's "Government of England" (I: 400-401): "It is truly said that the House of Lords cannot initiate or amend, and practically cannot reject, any money bill." This seemed true at the time. But the very next year the Lords rejected the finance bill prepared by the Commons. Small wonder is it then, as one reviews the origin and growth of the taxing power of the representative branch, that it made the following reply in 1909, to the action of the Lords: "The action of the House of Lords in refusing to pass into law the financial provisions made by this House for the services of the year is a breach of the Constitution and a usurpation of the rights of the House of Commons."

III. A study may be made, similar to No. I above, but with special reference to the diminution of the power of the House of Lords with the growth of representative government. In such a study due emphasis should be laid upon the temporary abolition of the upper House following 1649; the need that led to a remodeled upper House as provided in the Humble Petition and Advice of 1657; and the restoration of the old House of Lords in 1660. The different aspect of the present problem, brought about by the growth of the Cabinet system, must of course be pointed out.

IV. Similarly the diminution of the king's power may be made a special study. In this connection one phase of the present crisis is especially interesting. Although there has been no veto by the Crown since Anne's reign, the king has still a peculiar vestige of legislative power. Queen Anne was the ultimate legislative authority when she "swamped the Lords" in 1711-1712. In a similar way the threat to create new peers helped to carry the Reform Bill of 1832, and the Ministry was sore taxed to secure the assent of the King to such extreme procedure. An interesting question in the present crisis is already being propounded in some quarters: Suppose the Liberals carry the coming elections; suppose the Lords still refuse to consent to the reform proposed by the Liberals; and finally, suppose the King stoutly refuses to "swamp the Lords?" Here is an interesting contingency. It will probably not occur, but the mere statement of the proposition shows that the King still holds a card. He still has this ultimate, indirect legislative power. This is a strange remnant from the days of Norman absolutism.

Thus the present crisis in English politics in its various phases illustrates perfectly the connection between past and present. In addition to the landmarks of history mentioned under the various headings above the teacher may, of course, indicate as many intermediate steps as seem suited to the purpose. An attitude of historical impartiality may be maintained toward the merits of the present controversy across sea, but at the same time it may be made clear that the claims of the House of Commons constitute a logical chapter in a long story. The political cohorts in England. to-day are in the line of march that began when the first William set up his standard at Pevensey on a September day

of 1066.

A Review a Proper Introduction. In order that the student may understand the rise of Macedon under Philip II it is necessary for the instructor to begin by emphasizing two things: First, the essential weakness of Greece at his accession and second, his success in removing the obstacles which had hitherto prevented Macedon from becoming a great State. To grasp the situation in 359 B. C. it is necessary to recall to mind much of that struggle between individual cities for the mastery which characterized earlier Greek history. This may be done by calling the roll of the great city-states of Greece in the order of their pre-eminence, and noting how and why each in turn forfeited the leadership (It might be helpful to tabulate these facts on the blackboard as they are drawn from the

mony through the death of her incomparable leader.

The class realizes by a review of this character that the only cities which could possibly have thwarted the ambitions of Philip, namely Thebes, Athens and Sparta, were in no position to bar his progress. It is true that for a brief interval Athens seemed about to regain her lost empire, but this hope soon vanished as a result of the struggle known as the Social War. Thebes, too, in spite of the loss of Epaminondas, seemed for a time master of the situation, but there was little of reality behind the semblance of power. There was no great Theban whom she could match against the wily Philip. On the other hand, Athens even in her weakness produced a Demosthenes, who, though battling for a lost

cause, showed himself a worthy representative of the days of her power and great

ness.

66

The Internal Problems before Philip. At least three tasks devolved upon Philip of Macedon: (1) The consolidation of his Macedonian possessions; (2) the creation of an effective military organization; and (3) the acquisition of a satisfactory seaboard, as it were, cutting windows" to look out upon Greece. Philip's tasks were very similar to those which confronted that creator of modern Russia-Peter the Great. The outlook was almost as discouraging, but with this difference, that Philip profited to a greater extent than did Peter from the weakness and discord of his enemies. He pursued his ambitions, however, with the same steadfastness of purpose and with the same assurance of ultimate success, but advanced much more surely and rapidly toward the goal which he has set himself.

The following topical analysis of the subject suggests the main points to be emphasized:

Philip of Macedon and the conquest of Greece

1. Weakness of Greece.

2. Attempts of Athens to regain power. 3. Attempts of Philip to obtain a sea

board.

4. Opposition of Athens, Aeschines and
Demosthenes.

5. Interference in Central Greece.
(a) Occasions.

(b) Chaeroneia and the supremacy of
Macedon.

6. Plans for conquest of Persia.

It will be noted that this analysis lays special emphasis upon the attempt to secure a seaboard on those steps which culminated eventually in the loss of Greek freedom on the battlefield of Chaeroneia. These two undertakings, the expansion of Macedon eastward along the Aegean, and that southward into Northern and Central Greece, were closely bound together in that they involved Philip in hostile relations with the same cities. Demosthenes foresaw what actually came to pass, that the

fate of an Amphipolis or an Olynthus was closely linked with that of the rest of Greece. The success of these enterprises, however, was assured in no small measure by the thoroughness with which Philip had set his own house in order, and his complete mastery of the statecraft of his age. Not for naught had he spent three years as a hostage at Thebes. It was there that he made himself familiar with all the idiosyncracies of the Greek character, and acquired that knowledge of men and affairs which enabled him to secure the mastery. In short," says Curteis, "Philip left Macedon a boy and he returned a man, full of energy and new ideas" (page 23).

One of the most interesting of his preliminary labors was his effort to secure the control of that series of great cities which dotted the shores of the northern Aegean. The creation of this seaboard had much to do with dragging Macedon from her obscurity and elevating her to the rank of a world power.

The magnitude of the task before Philip and the marvelous ability of the man will become more apparent if the teacher keeps these internal problems more or less separate from the story of the conquest of Greece proper. They undoubtedly paved the way for his later successes, and should not be entirely divorced from them. The instructor would probably find it much easier to present the various episodes in the life of Philip in strictly chronological order. If this is done the student will be likely to pass over rather lightly the special problems which awaited solution at his handsany one of which was a test of his force of character. "No prophet in his happiest hour," says Bury, "could have predicted that within thirty years . . . Macedon would bear the arts and wisdom of Hellas to the ends of the earth" (page 681). When the student pauses to consider that this result was attributable not only to the military genius of the great Alexander, but to the energy and ability of his illustrious father, the life of this barbarian prince makes a strong appeal to the imagination. If this method be pursued of following each successful undertaking to the end before

taking up a new phase of his career, there is more likelihood of leaving with a class a distinct impression of the many-sidedness of the man and his constructive statesmanship. Nothing will be lost, and much, we believe, will be gained by deferring the consideration of his various efforts to secure a foothold in Greece proper until the class has followed to the end his intrigues in the north.

The Conquest of Greece.

The most satisfactory method of presenting the story of the conquest of Greece is to look upon Philip's attempts as a series of steps, each bringing him a little nearer the desired goal. The occasion for each and the advantages gained or lost should be discussed in sufficient detail to make the tortuous course of Philip's policy as clear as possible. This is not an easy matter, and lack of time often impels the teacher to sacrifice some of the details of the story in order to secure more time for Alexander. The class should be constantly reminded that Philip, too, was imbued with the same ambition which dominated his successor of uniting the Greeks in a great conquest of the Orient. Death, however, cut short his plans. He is entitled to no small meed of the credit for having made the undertaking possible.

Literature.

The teacher will find the following references especially helpful: Curteis, Rise of the Macedonian Empire" (chapter III on Macedon and Hellas at Philip's Accession presents in a few pages a bird's-eye view of Greek history from Philip's accession to the death of Alexander). Wheeler, "Alexander the Great" (the preliminary chapters cover the rise of Macedon. Although they have special reference to Alexander, they will be found to contain much useful material on the topic under consideration). Bury, "History of Greece." chapter XVI. Seignobos. "Ancient Civilization," pages 176-180. (Note especially the author's analysis of the work before Philip.)

The growth of Macedonia may be brought more vividly before the student by the use of such a map as is to be found in West, "Ancient History," page 211.

subject he can find excellent material with illuminating maps and other illustrative material in such books as Cheyney's "European Background of American History," in Fiske's "Discovery of America," and in Seebohm's "Era of the Protestant Revolution." Special studies may here well be assigned to the various members of the class. Boys and girls alike are invariably fascinated by the chapters in these books which deal with the lines of medieval trade and the commodities which the medieval merchants offered for sale. Furthermore, a study of Marco Polo's description of his

voyages to the far eastern countries will readily be undertaken by students.

From the far eastern countries, by wellestablished lines of communication, spices and drugs, precious stones and fine fabrics, gums, perfumes, dyes, rare woods and other commodities were regularly brought to the Italian trading communities in the Mediterranean. Thence by routes across the Alps, through Germany, France and Flanders, they were transported to the countries bordering on the northern seas. On the coast of the English channel, the Baltic and the North Sea were depots for an export trade which extended far into the northern part of Europe. Thus, in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries there were five groups of trading cities with which the class should become more or less familiar: (1) those in northern Italy, like Venice and Genoa; (2) Those in southern France, like Marseilles; (3) those in southern Germany, like Augsburg and Nuremberg; (4) those in northern France and Flanders, like Calais, Bruges and Antwerp; (5) those in northern Germany, like Lübeck and Hamburg.

Beginnings of the English Export Trade. In this medieval trade the merchants of England took no part. The Hanseatic League, composed of the merchants of the cities of northern Germany, had its factory, "The Steelyard," in London; the merchants of Flanders bought the wool of England and exchanged for it the cloths of Flanders; and year by year a fleet from Venice visited the coast towns of southern England and exchanged the commodities of southern Europe and the Levant for the raw materials of the British Isles. Gradually, during the fifteenth century, the men of England, too, entered upon this international trade. By the middle of the century, the wool of England began to be manufactured into cloth at home; a Drapers' Company was organized, and a pany of exporters. The Merchant Adventurers, obtained a charter from the king for the purpose of carrying on trade with foreign countries. A special study of this company of Merchant Adventurers, the prototype of all the later English trading companies, will repay the class. The basis of this study may be found in Cheyney's "Industrial and Social History of England," page 164ff, in the University of Pennsylvania Reprints, second series, II, and in Cheyney's European Background," chapters VII and VIII.

com

shall buy or sell any manner of wines of the growth of the Duchy of Gascony, but such as shall be ventured and brought in an English, Irish or Welshman's ship mariners of the same [being] English, Irish or Welshmen for the most part." (Adams and Stevens, "Select Documents," No. 135.) In Henry VIII we are face to face with a son of the "New Age." He encouraged ship building and ship owning. He corresponded with students of geography and with adventurers. He encouraged and profited by the Newfoundland fisheries, and he did his best to open to Englishmen the new avenues of trade which were being developed in the early part of the sixteenth century. Trade routes and trade conditions, by this time, had altogether changed. The old routes to the East were closed, and new routes were constantly being opened. The story of Prince Henry the Navigator and the story of Columbus and the other Spanish explorers may, it is true, lie somewhat outside the field of English history, still the teacher can profitably direct the attention of his classes to these voyages, because they shed so much light upon the history of English commerce.

The English Trading Companies. By the middle of the sixteenth century, numerous English trading companies had been organized and numerous voyages in search of new trade routes had been undertaken. Most dramatic of all these voyages, and an excellent type lesson in illustration of the general topic, is the voyage to Russia, undertaken and carried through by Chancellor and Willoughby in 1553. Here is an opportunity for the teacher to introduce his classes to the fascinating stories of Hakluyt. If the original stories are not accessible, the teacher ought certainly to be able to obtain Edwin M. Bacon's "English Voyages Retold from Hakluyt," an excellent substitute for the original.

"At the time of Elizabeth's accession we see that the way for expansion was but prepared; but certain facts are already significant. The spirit of adventure is born, and with it some experience in distant navigation; merchants and gentry have begun to combine their capital in enterprise with encouragement from the crown." (Woodward, Expansion of the British Empire, p. 16.) Then comes the period of the great English seamen-Frobisher and Drake, Gilbert and Raleigh-the period in which the English gradually overcame and outdistanced the Spaniards and prepared the way for their first settlements in America.

The English Colonizing Companies.

The earlier English companies-the Merchant Adventurers, the Muscovy Company, the Levant Company, and the East India Company-were all purely trading companies. Their charters were granted to merchants who sent out ships to trade and who

occupied only so much land as was necessary for the purpose of their commerce. Gradually, the scope of these companies was widened, and colonization and settlement, as yet only for commercial advantage, were undertaken. Then a new kind of company was chartered, the colonization company, among the greatest of which were the London and the Plymouth Companies; but there were others. The new charters now contain clauses which grant to the members political as well as commercial privileges. The members of these companies either themselves intend to move out to the colonies or propose to send out settlers to occupy the country. It is with this stage of English commercial development that the American student is most intimately concerned, yet he cannot understand its true significance unless he has studied the history of English commerce in its earlier stages.

One thing more the teacher should attempt to indicate to his classes, and that is the difference between the character of the English colonization and that of England's keenest rivals-Spain and France. In England, colonial enterprises were regularly undertaken by individuals, either singly or banded together in trading companies. In Spain and France, these enterprises were undertaken by the government. The difference in the results is obvious: in the English colonies there developed a spirit of independence which was never possible in the colonies of the continental countries. The English colonies prospered or died because of the initiative or lack of it The on the part of individual citizens. continental colonies were fostered and protected by the home government and were never able to develop along independent lines as did those of England.

Bibliography.

The two or three best books which are suitable both for teachers and for students who are studying this period are: (1) Cheyney, "Industrial and Social History of England," chapters VI and VII; Cheyney, "European Background of American History," chapters II, III, IV, VII and VIII, and (3) Fiske, "Discovery of America," chapters III, IV and V. Besides these, interesting and profitable material can be gathered from: (4) Traill, “Social England," volume III, pp. 209-228, 477-494; (5) Busch, "England Under the Tudors," (6) Seeley, "Expansion of England," and (7) Woodward," Expansion of the British Empire."

For sources, the student should, if possible consult (1) Hakluyt, "Principal Navigations," (2) "University of Pennsylvania Reprints," second series, II; (3) Cheyney, "Readings in English History," (4) Hart, 'American History Told by Contemporaries," volume I. Besides these, the student will find a few documents in each of the other well-known source books of English history.

THE INDIANAPOLIS MEETINGS

Tuesday, December 27th.

An unusually early registration and large attendance marked the first day's sessions of the American Historical Association at Indianapolis. The excellent arrangements of the local committee and of the authorities of the Claypool Hotel provided for an easy dispatch of the work of registration and of the care of guests. The day was devoted to joint meetings of the main association with the Ohio Valley Historical Association and the Mississippi Valley Historical Association. The afternoon sessions gave rise to a proposal to affiliate the Ohio Valley Association, which, after much discussion, was referred to a committee for consideration. It was decided to hold the next meeting of the Mississippi Valley Association at Evanston, Ill., in May, 1911, in conjunction with the Evanston Historical Society and the Chicago Historical Society.

Western history in many aspects was treated at the evening meeting in a joint session of the three associations. The American introvention in West Florida, 1810-1813 was the theme of a paper read by Prof. Isaac J. Cox, of the University of Cincinnati, and discussed by Prof. Frederic A. Ogg, of Simmons College, Boston, and by Rowland Dunbar, of the Mississippi State Department of Archives and History. Dr. Cox produced materials showing the connection of American officials with the West Florida movement for independence from Spain and for annexation to the United States; and all the speakers differed with the earlier statements of American historians regarding the reprehensible conduct of the United States in annexing this land, basing their arguments upon the standards of international polity of that day, the fear of French or English intervention, and the inability of Spain or the local Florida inhabitants properly to police their district. Dr. Cox pointed out the similarity between this annexation and the attempts to gain Texas, New Mexico and California.

A plan for a centennial celebration at Pittsburgh to commemorate the voyage of the first steamboat on Western waters, the "Orleans," in March, 1811, was suggesed by Prot. Archer B. Hulbert, of Marietta College. Prof. Hulbert urged that the celebration take not merely a reminiscent and historical form by the duplication of the "Orleans" vessel and voyage, but that it be given a practical character by a study of the (1) mechanical questions of riverboat building and means to improve navigation, (2) the economic results of inland navigation, particularly of the proposed "9-foot stage" on the Ohio River; (3) the historical questions respecting the early Fulton-Livingston-Roosevelt monopoly, the sectional and local questions arising from

steamboat navigation, steamboat disasters, old shipyards, the variation of the channel of the Ohio River, and similar topics. Prof. R. B. Way, of Indiana University, urged the treatment of all such questions from a national and not from a local standpoint. Mr. John Wilson Townsend spoke briefly upon Lysander Hord, the man who made steamboat navigation on the Kentucky River possible.

Prof. Orin G. Libby, of the University of North Dakota, read an interesting study of the expeditions into the Missouri valley in 1738 and 1742-3, made by the French explorers-father and two sons named Verendyre. Dr. Clarence Alvord, of the University of Illinois, discussed the paper, stating that for boldness these expeditions rivalled those of Lasalle and of Lewis and Clark. The paper on early forts on the Upper Mississippi, by Mr. Dan E. Clark, was read only by title.

Wednesday, December 28th.

The second day's sessions opened with a morning meeting under the auspices of the North Central History Teachers' Association. The presiding offcer was Prof. J. A. Woodburn, and the topic, "The Teaching of History and Civics." The first feature of the program was an illustrative civics class in problems of "Waste and Saving," conducted by Miss Flora Swan, of Indianapolis, with pupils from the eighth grade. The lesson was designed to teach the value of economy in the home and the shop. The recitation was necessarily somewhat formal, and it might be termed an excellent demonstration of method rather than a typical. recitation. Mr. W. H. Davidson, of Indianapolis, followed with a brief description of the work done in civics in the elementary schools by using illustrative pictures of the activities of the water supply, milk supply, health department and other features of municipal life.

Professor Lucy M. Salmon, in discussing "The Evolution of the Teacher," urged that the whole life of the teacher should be one of growth; that there ought not be an arrested development after the teacher had left school or college, but rather a continuation of study and research, in order that the teacher, and through the teacher her scholars, might retain a capacity for original thought.

Professor A. C. McLaughlin, in the absence of Professor Hart, discussed the topic "Is Government Teachable in the Schools?"

in a lively impromptu talk. He spoke about the new methods by which the subject of government was made more concrete and practical. He raised the question whether the teacher of civics should emphasize actual governmental and political conditions or the theory of government, and closed with a discussion of the possibility

of combining history and government in the

same course.

"Citizenship Should Be the Theme of Civics Instruction was the proposition laid down by Mr. Arthur W. Dunn, of Philadelphia. Neither the city community nor local history should be the theme, although both may be made to supplement the treatment of the real subject-citizenship. Mr. F. P. Goodwin, of Cincinnati, followed with a description of the manner in which local history is used in the public schools of his city, serving as a basis for patriotism, giving a better understanding of the environment and of national history.

Conferences.

The system of departmental conferences, which had proved so successful in preceding years, was again followed by the program committee.

a

In the ancient history conference, presided over by Prof. H. B. Wright, of Yale, the first paper by Prof. R. W. Rogers, of Drew Theological Seminary, gave a neat bit of historical reasoning to show that Sennacherib made not one, but two western campaigns. Prof. W. F. Westerman applied similar forms of historical argument to the solution of another specific question: the motive for the publication of the Res Gestae of Augustus in the Monument of Ancyra, motive which the speaker believed to exist in the desire to make the imperial power hereditary. Prof. R. F. Scholz, of the University of California, undertook a more extended topic when he discussed "Some Aspects of Roman Imperialism." He traced the spread of the Roman municipal system with constitutions based upon wealth, and the growth of estates and of feudal tenures in the empire, showing in conclusion the relation of the two processes to one another. Prof. H. A. Sill, of Cornell, closed the conference with an appreciative review of the influence of Niebuhr's life and writings upon the study of ancient history during the century which has elapsed since the first lectures at Berlin.

American History.

Diplomatic history, with special reference to Latin-American countries, was the topic in the American history conference. Prof. Joseph Schafer, of the University of Oregon, held the view that George Canning shaped the policy which determined the Oregon question and led to the adoption of the 49° parallel. Canning was, however, in favor of the Columbia River as part of the boundary, and his position was surrendered by Great Britain after his death, only because Sir Robert Peel did not wish a rupture with the United States. Prof. J. A. Callahan, of the University of West Virginia, discussed the attempts of the Buchanan administration to secure territory and commercial privileges from Mexico by purchase, and he showed the influence of these attempts upon

the later attitude of the Confederate government toward Mexico. Joseph Sears, of New York, dwelt upon the failure of Americans to understand the Latin-Americans, and the consequent fruitless attempts to establish commercial intercourse with those countries. Mr. Sears' remarks called forth a lively discussion, in which Mr. Hale, of the Bureau of American Republics, took exception to some of his generalizations, and Prof. Don E. Smith, of the University of California, proposed an American school in the city of Mexico, similar to those established in Athens and Rome.

Modern History Conference.

The significance of modern European history as a field for historical research for American students was discussed at the Modern History Conference, presided over by Prof. G. S. Ford, of the University of Illinois. Prof. C. M. Andrews, of Yale, opened the subject with a delightful paper upon the prerequisites to successful work in this field. Dr. Andrews pointed out that the materials and methods required for the study of the modern period were very dif ferent from those sued in medieval history. In the latter study the documents are fairly accessible in print and are susceptible to certain definite methods of interpretation and use, and there is little need for language equipment except in Latin. On the other hand, the materials for modern history are deposited in national or local archives, they are recorded in the national languages, they are exceedingly complex in form and contents, and there are many intricate archive regulations of the several depositories. Yet, in spite of these difficulties, and of the additional disadvantage of the cost of residence and travel abroad, modern European history offers an excellent field for research work if the topics taken by the investigator are not too extensive.

A most interesting discussion followed Dr. Andrews' paper, which was participated in by Prof. A C. Coolidge, of Harvard, who dwelt upon the increasingly difficult language requirements; by Prof. J. M. Vincent, of Johns Hopkins, who emphasized the necessity for historical training in the study of economic history; by Prof. J. W. Thompson, of the University of Chicago, who pointed out the relationship between medieval and modern history; by Prof. F. M. Fling, of University of Nebraska, who argued for a deeper training in historical criticism for teacher and scholar; and by Prof. Anderson, of University of Minnesota, who urged the selection of research topics from those touching both European and American history.

Local Historical Societies. Delegates representing over twenty different State and local historical societies met in conference under the chairmanship of Mr. C. M. Burton, of Detroit. Prof. C. W. Alvord, of the University of Illinois, gave a talk upon the preservation and care of historical manuscripts, illustrating by

documents, in various stages of mounting,

the processes used in the Illinois State Historical Library. Mr. F. A. Sampson, of the Missouri State Historical Society, spoke upon his experiences in the collection of material for a State historical library, giving much practical advice.

Presidential Address.

The annual address was delivered by President Frederick J. Turner on Wednesday evening, his topic being "Social Forces in American History." The theme of the address was the recent industrial revolution in the United States, the influence of which upon national history, said Dr. Turner, should be compared to the American Revolution and the Civil War. The old theories of equality and the rights of man must be reconsidered and restated; the old American democracy had been invaded by many factors foreign to its earlier principles. Among these new features were the vast army of immigrants arriving each year, the passage of arable national domain into private hands, the growth of large-scale production, the extension of financial and banking interests with their centre in New York, and the attainment of self-confidence by American labor. To-day vested interests and the trusts occupy the strange position of insisting upon the old individualistic democracy, while insurgency is demanding new democratic functions in the control of trusts and new democratic safeguards to take the place of the former safeguardthe free lands of the republic.

Thursday, December 29th.

The morning sessions on Thursday and Friday were commemorative of the fiftieth anniversary of secession. The Thursday meeting was devoted to papers relating to the North in 1860. Prof. Carl R. Fish, of the University of Wisconsin, spoke upon the decision of the Ohio Valley, showing how the Ohio River was a bond and not a barrier, creating a definite community of interests among a homogeneous population. Owing to the development of railroads and canals stronger commercial relations were established with the North than with the South, and this fact explains the decision of the valley in favor of the North in 1860. The Dred Scott Decision was discussed by Dr. E. S. Corwin, of Princeton. The conclusions reached by Dr. Corwin were that there was no close relationship between the decision and the State sovereignty theories of Calhoun, and that the pronouncement of Taney beyond the case in hand was not usurpation, but it was fictitious law made up for the occasion.

Prof. A. C. McLaughlin, of the University of Chicago, gave somewhat novel interpretations of the doctrines of secession and coercion. Calhoun's historical argument that the national government was the creation of the States-a view accepted recently by most historians north and south -Prof. McLaughlin characterized as metaphysical and as omitting consideration of many important factors. The framers of the constitution, it was shown, had intended forming a national government; and the absence of any express power to coerce a State was to be taken not as a sign of weakness, but rather as showing the impossibility of a State becoming recalcitrant. Even the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, judged by the point of view of their own day, are much less violent than usually considered. Southern leaders, too, before 1825, were distinctly nationalistic in attitude, and their later position would indicate that Calhounism was a doctrine invented for a purpose at a time when it

served to embody the needs of a section. The session closed with a paper by Mr. D. W. Howe, showing the apathy of the North to the early stages of secession, and the great awakening after the firing upon Sumter.

More Conferences.

Thursday afternoon was devoted to more departmental conferences. At the Medieval History Conference, presided over by Prof. E. W. Dow, of the University of Michigan, an introductory paper by Dr. C. Robinson, of Yale, called forth an interesting discussion of Medieval English history as a possible field of research for historical students. The discussion was participated in by Prof. C. H. Haskins, of Harvard; Prof. J. F. Baldwin, of Vassar; Prof. J. M. Vincent, of Johns Hopkins; Prof. M. N. Trenholme, of the University of Missouri, and by others.

The Conference of Archivists, presided over by Dean H. V. Ames, of the University of Pennsylvania, was well attended. Prof. C. M. Andrews, of Yale, in the absence of Mr. A. J. F. Van Laer, of the New York State Library, read the latter's report upon the International Congress of Archivists and Librarians at Brussels, August 28-31, 1910. The report was an excellent epitome of the work of the congress. The resolutions adopted by the congress stated desirability of preparing handbooks describing the principal archive repositories and the rules governing them; the classification of archives, according to the government department from which they came; the need of international co-operation in archive work; and the necessity of transferring new records as well as old ones to a central archive depository. Mr. Dunbar Rowland, of the Mississippi State Department of Archives and History, emphasized the importance of a central depository for archives, showing the convenience of the English system and the evils growing out of the lack of any such system in the United States. Mr. Gaillard Hunt, of the Library of Congress, pointed out the radical difference between archive problems in the United States and in European countries, and particularly the reluctance of government departments to transfer their archives to a central depository. He believed that the way to overcome this reluctance was to construct a satisfactory archive building in Washington and show departmental chiefs that such a plan would be of value not to historians alone, but also to administrative officials. Prof. F. L. Paxson spoke briefly upon the chronological division between open and closed archives. The experience in archive work in their respective states was discussed by D. E. Clark, of Iowa; R. D. W. Connor, of North Carolina; Harlow Lindley and Mr. Brown, of Indiana; Dr. Tilton, of Connecticut, and E. C. Barker, of Texas. The general sentiment favored using the term "archives" to mean public documents, and the keeping of such documents distinct from personal and family documents, although some of the speakers, for practical reasons, favored the inclusion of official and non-official documents in the State libraries.

The Training of History Teachers.

A conference of teachers of history in teachers' colleges and normal schools discussed the preparation of the teacher of history in the high school and in the grades. Prof. Edgar Dawson, of the New York Normal College (New York City), said America was far behind Germany and France in the quantity and quality of preparation required of one who intends to teach. In spite of some good laws upon the statute books of our States, the States either do