Venezuela's claims against British Guiana are
identical with the ancient ones of Spain
against England.

"The London Standard publishes a despatch
from Madrid in which it asserts that the arti-
cle appearing in El Nacional is an inspired one
and is causing considerable sensation."

attention distracted from the making of their the newspaper El Nacional publishes an arti-
world-famous sugar, the "Demerara crystals," cle strongly advocating the establishment of
from cutting their splendid timber, the "green-States regarding Venezuela, arguing that
an entente between Spain and the United
heart," and from the working of their gold-
fields, by learning that they stand charged
with putting themselves in contravention of
the Monroe Doctrine, which, it appears, gives
a mysterious power to the people of the United
States to take away from British colonists
territory to which they consider themselves as
rightfully entitled as were the British colonists
of North America to the colony of New York
in the old days before the Revolution of 1776.
Having been carefully taught the ten com-
mandments in their youth, those colonists are
much shocked by the pronounced determina-
tion of Brother Jonathan to outrage the
eighth, for "Thou shalt not steal!" would
seem to apply to lands as well as to goods. Of
course, the colonists know that Americans
have been led to take up a hostile position
upon the question of the Venezuelan boundary
by the importunacy with which it has been
misrepresented to them that, in this matter,
the colonists of British Guiana have not them-
selves observed the eighth commandment,
despite their early instruction. But here we
have the case that Victor Hugo pithily de-
scribed, where an unfounded charge is taken to
be true if repeated often enough. "If some
one accused me of stealing the towers of Notre
Dame, and repeated the accusation often, I
should have to run away from Paris, even
though the towers were to be seen standing;
for," added Victor Hugo, "no one would be.
lieve in my innocence." So it is that, after
lustily crying "Stop thief !" for some years,
the Venezuelans have led the Americans to be-

lieve that British colonists have been robbing that nation of part of its territory.

That there must be two sides to this question can easily be seen by two items relating to it that appeared in the Daily Chronicle, a news. paper of Georgetown, the capital of British Guiana, in December last. On the 24th of that month was published a cutting from an American journal, in which, telegraphing from Washington, on the 4th, to New York, a correspondent reported the brave words of Representative Livingston of Georgia upon the situation in the terms following:

"Representative Livingston of Georgia, who introduced the joint resolution yesterday looking to the formation of a Congressional committee to investigate the boundary question, was asked to-day what the United States ought to do if Great Britain declines to arbitrate. Why, fight her, of course,' was the emphatic reply. No other course will comport with our dignity and self-respect. Venezuela is not to be considered in this matter. Great Britain has violated the Monroe Doc. trine. She is continually acquiring additional territory in South America. We cannot and must not permit this. We should go to war first.'"

There you have in the words italicized the result of Venezuelan misrepresentations. Rep resentative Livingston says: "Great Britain has violated the Monroe Doctrine. She is continually acquiring additional territory in South America." Representative Livingston has been misinformed.

The second item that has been referred to appeared in the Georgetown daily paper al ready mentioned, on the 27th of December last, and took the form of a public news telegram from New York to British Guiana, as follows:

"NEW YORK, December 26. "Intelligence from Madrid announces that

Now, here we have the Spanish statement,
one clearly hostile to England in motive, and
made with the intention of currying favor with
the United States; with self-interest at the bot-
tom of it, as regards possible intervention by
America on behalf of Cuba. And what is the
effect of this unfriendly pronouncement of the
"inspired" Nacional? This, that Venezuela's
claims against British Guiana "are identical
with the ancient ones of Spain against Eng-
land." Surely, this statement of the case,
given with all the weight of the evidence of a
hostile witness, does not support the allegation
of Representative Livingston, that Great Bri
tain "is continually acquiring additional terri-
tory in South America." The Spanish state-
ment shows that the "claims" are "ancient"
ones; that the "claims" are "identical"; and
that, while Great Britain was in possession,
which used to be regarded as being nine points
of the law, the Spanish nation "claimed "
against Great Britain's possession. The alleged
"claims" of Spain were never asserted against
Great Britain except on Spanish maps. But,
long years before Great Britain possessed the
land now known as British Guiana, the Dutch
had owned it, and there had been international
contests over its possession between France
and England, of which further notice will be
taken later on in these notes. Meanwhile, let it
be noted that, so far from Great Britain merely
acting in this matter the cowardly part of a
bully towards a weak nation, the British Gov-
ernment enjoyed its right to the possession of
the territory of British Guiana unquestioned,

diplomatically, by a powerful nation such as
Spain then was, with her then vast dependen-

cies in the New World, and at a time when the
Spaniards had the power of the great Napo-
leon at their back. To enforce these claims,
with all their "ancient and fish-like smell,"
the Venezuelans would bully the colony of
British Guiana, but that the whole power of
the British empire is at the back of the colony.
The Venezuelans assert "claims" that Spain
never made against Great Britain when what
is now Venezuela belonged to Spain.

The British Government has expressed its
willingness to submit to arbitration the ques
tion of the boundary of British Guiana, out-
side of the Schomburgk line; and to this deci-
sion the colonists willingly bow. To give up
territory within the Schomburgk line would
lead, step by step, to a demand for the surren-
der of the whole colony, as the application of
the Monroe Doctrine might from time to time
be capriciously stretched. To make clear to
the world how just is the title of Great Britain
to territory in its possession, it will be well to
take note of the several occasions on which
those territories were captured from the
Dutch.

On four several occasions did England take from the Dutch that part of the territory now claimed by Venezuela. In 1665 England and Holland being at war, Lord Willoughby, the Governor of Barbados, sent an expedition against the Dutch colonies in Guiana. The success of the English was at first complete. What, at that time, was regarded as the boun dary on the left side of the Essequibo? Let one

of those who took part in the expedition an

swer:

"This yeare [1665] the English could boast of the possession of all that part of Guiana abutting on the Atlantick Ocean, from Cayan on the South East to Oronoque on the North West (except a small colonie on the River Berbisbees), which is noe lesse than six hundred miles."

The colony in Berbice remained in possession of the Dutch. France joined Holland in the war against England, and it is specifically mentioned by the same authority that the settlements of Essequibo, Pomeroon, and Moruca, "indured great misery, in a long siege by the French." The manuscript account of the expedition by Major Scott is preserved in the British Museum (Sloane MSS. 3662).

In the end, the Dutch recaptured their settlements, and also took the colony of Surinam, which up to that time had been an English colony. By the third article of the Treaty of Breda, in 1667, it was provided that

"each party shall hold for time to come, in session, all such countries, isles, towns, forts, full right of sovereignty, propriety, and posplaces, and colonies as, whether during this war or before, have been taken and kept from the other by force of arms and in what manner soever, and that as they possessed and enjoyed them the 10th day of May last."

In this manner were the Dutch confirmed in their rights to their ancient settlements between the Corentyne and the Orinoco. Neither France nor England dreamed of asking for the assent of Spain to these transactions. Spanish claims had not been asserted during the military operations between the contending nations, in those settlements in Guiana. How solemnly England felt herself bound by the terms of article 3 of the Treaty of Breda, history attests. Sir John Harman, the English admiral, and Gen. Willoughby not being at the time aware of the fact that a treaty had been entered into, had actually retaken Surinam from the Dutch, and that colony had again come under an English governor. On news of this reaching England, the King sent out orders to restore Surinam to the Dutch, and this was promptly done. England, having acted with such scrupulous good faith in her observance of the rights in Guiana acquired by the Dutch under the Treaty of Breda, cannot be expected to ignore those rights now that by the chances of war she has herself succeeded to the enjoyment of a share in them.

Nor must we lose sight of the important fact that, while the Dutch were confirmed in the possession of their colonies in Guiana by the Treaty of Breda, the Euglish, under the same treaty, were confirmed in the possession of New Netherlands, which became, thereupon, the colony of New York. One of the events of the war had been the capture of New Netherlands by the English. It is illustrative of the point of view from which colonies were then regarded in England, that the keeping of New York, in place of Surinam, "at that time was looked upon by many as a bad exchange (European Settlements in America,' London, 1757, vol. ii., p. 179). The Dutch had not obtained the sanction of the Spaniards for their settlement at New York. The English did not think, for a moment, of asking Spain to ratify the exchange. The original title by which New York formed part of the United Colonies was, in fact, exactly the same as that under which the old Dutch settlements between Surinam and the Amacura now form part of the British Empire. Has the Government at Washington ever doubted the validity of the

title by which the United States hold the Empire State? Papal bulls and Spanish "claims" notwithstanding, Americans possess themselves in peace, assured, as to their right, that Pope and Spaniard could not trouble it.

The second occasion on which the Dutch settlements were captured by the English was in February, 1781, when Great Britain was at war with Holland, Spain, France, and the North American colonies. In 1782 the colonies were taken from the English by a strong expedi tion sent from France for the express purpose of their capture. On the peace of 1783 France restored the colonies to Holland. As the Eng lish had again been turned out of the Dutch colonies, the evidence of an English official as to the boundary on the Essequibo side of the Dutch possessions in Guiana might be regarded as being that of a not too friendly witness. Such evidence is to be found in a chart published in London, on the 6th of October, 1783, by William Faden, Geographer to the King. The chart is one of "the coast of Guy ana from the Oronoko to the River of Amazons." It was executed by De la Rochette, from the observations of Captain Edward Thompson of the Royal Navy, made in his Majesty's vessel Hyana, when Captain Thompson commanded in the Rivers Berbice, Essequebo and Demerari, and governed those colo nies after their conquest from the Dutch." The boundary line given in this chart includes the Amacura River, which is that set down by Schomburgk. There is a curious error in this and in at all events one other chart of the Guiana coast published about this time. It is this: that the Barima River is given as the extreme northern line of the Dutch settlements, within which the Amacura is placed, wrongly, to the south of the Barima. As is well known, the Barima runs southerly of the Amacura. This lapse shows the ignorance of the draughtsman, but strongly testifies that the Amacura was within the Dutch possessions. It is well to repeat that the Dutch boundaries in 1665 and 1783, as testified to by Englishmen, were held to be such by persons who had been in authority in the expeditions that captured those colonies, and that their testimony was given after the English had suffered the mortifica tion of expulsion from those possessions, and when there could not be any prospect of recovering them.

It was in 1796 that England became, for the third time, possessed of the Dutch colonies. On this occasion the British Government is said to have informed the Government of Spain, in a friendly manner, what the Dutch held to be the boundaries of their possessions bordering upon those of Spain. No protest was made by Spain against that representation, in any of its details. On the 5th of October of the same year the King of Spain declared war against the King of England, his kingdom, and vassals. Among the many reasons for war alleged by his Majesty-who, be it remembered, was forced into this war by his French allies(?)-was the following:

"The conquest which she [Great Britain] has made of the Colony of Demerary, belonging to the Dutch, and whose advantageous position puts her in a position to get possession of posts still more important."

It will be observed that the name Demerary is here used to include the colonies of Berbice and Essequibo, which had been captured by the English at the same time. Not a word is said therein of any offence taken at the English representation of the boundaries of the Dutch settlements! As the French had themselves been in possession of those very colonies

in 1782-83, they no doubt knew what the Dutch
boundaries were. Is it not reasonable to
conclude that, had they been able to question
the correctness of the claim, they would have
procured that the King of Spain, whom they
were forcing into the war, should specifically
resent an invasion of his territorial rights?
The advantageous position of the Dutch set-
tlements to which the King of Spain referred
was, no doubt, their proximity to the Orinoco.
The posts still more important were, in all
reason, the Orinoco and its neighborhood.

The colonies remained in British possession
from 1796 until 1802, when they were given up
to the Dutch, in accordance with the terms of
the Peace of Amiens. During the British occu-
pation the Spaniards had sent a military expe-
dition against that part of the Dutch settle-
ments called Moruca, where, for many years
previously, the Dutch had established a fort.
The Spaniards, having at that time but the
scantiest of population in any part of the right
bank, collected their force on the left bank of
that river when the expedition set out. They
landed at night on the 19th of January, 1797.
They were received by Dutch troops who, on
the surrender of the colonies, had taken ser-
vice under the British Government. The
Spaniards were completely defeated, and but
few escaped. Capt. Rochelle, the brave com-
mander of the Dutch soldiers, died of wounds
received in this engagement. On account of

his services, the Legislature of the then United
Colony of Demerara and Essequibo voted pen-
sions for the support of his children.

For the fourth time the colonies with their
dependencies (en onderhoorige districten) came
into the possession of Great Britain on the 17th
of September, 1803, and their cession by the
Dutch was completed by the convention of the
13th of August, 1814. Some time after the

capture of the colonies in 1803, and before their
cession in 1814, a chart of the colony was pub-
lished. It was prepared by an officer of engi
neers named Walker. Having no copy of this
chart at hand, one can only say, from memory,
that it gives the Amacura as within the Dutch
limits. The Schomburgk boundary line was
not evolved out of Sir Robert Schomburgk's
imagination.

From the foregoing statements it will be seen
that, for 230 years, Englishmen have borne
public testimony to the fact that the Dutch
were in possession of territory as far as the
Amacura. It should be clearly understood
that Great Britain does not claim up to the
point

"Where Orinoco, in his pride,

Rolls to the main no tribute tide."

as a settlement would be understood among nations? On the other hand, the Portuguese, French, Dutch, and the English all had colonies and settlements in some part or other of Guiana. And yet, among the grounds of "claim" set forth for the information of the world by the Venezuelan Government is the following fatuous declaration, in a despatch written on the 26th of January, 1887, by their Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Señor Urbaneja, to the British Minister at Carácas:

"According to the order issued by the King of Spain in 1768, the province of Guiana was bounded on the south by the Amazon and on the east by the Atlantic Ocean; so that the acquisitions of other Powers within those limits were not valid until they were made lawful by the consent of said monarch."

How one would like to have the opportunity of reading the orders of his most Catholic Majesty as to the boundaries of Mexico and Florida in 1768! How far would those regarding Mexico be respected by the United States?

A great deal still remains to be said as to the history of the European settlements in Guiana, and of the Dutch and English settlements especially, but that boundaries of the space in an American journal may not be transgressed any more than those of a British colony, under the Pax Britannica.

Perhaps the cogency of the British case may be best put to Americans by setting forth the historical fact that the Pilgrim Fathers actually contemplated making their settlement in the New World in Guiana rather than in North America. These forefathers of the

great republic would, to Spaniards of that period, have been regarded as fit objects for the application of the system de hæretico comburendo. Will any reasonable man say that, seeking a place where they might worship God according to conscience, those persecuted exiles would have contemplated settling in any country under the dominion of Spain or within measurable distance of Spanish dominion? Let an old writer of the history of the settlements in New England be heard. Prince, under the year 1617, and between the dates September 15 and November 4, makes the following statements:

"This year, Master Robinson and his Church begin to think of a remove to America, for several weighty reasons, as 1..

2.
3..

Upon their talk of removing, sundry of note among the Dutch would have them go under them, and make them large offers; but, choosing to go under the English Government, where they might enjoy their religious privileges without molestation, after humble prayers to GOD, they first debate, 'whether to go to Guiana, or Virginia?' And though some, and none of the meanest, are earnest for the former, they at length.determine for the latter: so as to settle in a distinct body, but under the General Government of Vir

"And the young and strong Republic was by these in
virtue bred,
She was cradled in adventure, she was nursed in good-
men's dread,

The young and strong Republic that has filled the
world w.th fame,
And with great praise and marvel of the Anglo-Saxon
name."
N. DARNELL DAVIS.

It is said that the Orinoco receives the waters
of 436 rivers, and of more than 2,000 rivulets
and streams. It does not, however, receive
one drop of water from the little Amacura.
But, it will be asked, where were the Span-ginia."
iards all this time? The answer is simple.
They had some petty settlements high up the
Orinoco. Being men capable of taking extend-
ed views, they "took possession" of Guiana,
that vast country of 800,000 or 900,000 square
miles, between the Orinoco and the Amazon,
by saying they did so, when they first made a
tiny settlement up the Orinoco. The Portu-
guese, the French, and the Dutch, being prac-
tical people, entered upon the land and pos-
sessed themselves of it, while Spain asserted
its "claims" to Guiana by making maps that
included the vast regions occupied by the na-
tions mentioned. Will any one be bold enough
to assert that the Spaniards ever had a colony
on any part of the coast of Guiana, or that
the Spaniards ever had any settlement there,

LAFENESTRE'S LA FONTAINE.

PARIS, January 2, 1896. He who writes for children is assured, if he does his work well, of a longer immortality (if the two words admit of collocation) than any other writers. The 'Fables' of La Fontaine and the Contes' of Perrault will be read as long as the French language is spoken and un

Correspondence.

ENEMIES OF MANKIND.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE NATION:

SIR: In connection with the "late unpleasantness" it may interest some of your readers to recall the opinion expressed some fifty years ago by such a distinguished writer as the late Judge Haliburton ("Sam Slick ") in his 'Wise Saws' (c. 26), as to the relations which ought to exist between the two greatest branches of the English people, and the punishment that ought to be meted out to wilful disturbers of the peace. If so, here it is:

"Now we are two great nations, the greatest by a long chalk of any in the world-speak the same language, have the same religion, and our constitutions don't differ no great odds. We ought to draw closer than we do. We are big enough, equal enough, and strong enough not to be jealous of each other. United we are more than a match for all the other nations put together, and can defy their fleets, armies, and millions. Single we couldn't stand against all, and if one was to fall where would the other be? Mourning over the grave that covers a relative whose place can never be filled. It is authors of silly books, editors of silly papers, and demagogues of silly parties that helps to estrange us. I wish there was a gibbet high enough and strong enough to hang up all these enemies of mankind on." Yours, etc., J. M. GELDERT, JR. HALIFAX, N. S., January 17, 1896.

A NATIONAL UNIVERSITY AT WASH-
INGTON.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE NATION:

SIR: There are many objections to estab. lishing a national university at Washington, but the strongest of all is the incompatibility of the pursuit of truth with responsibility to politicians. During the past few weeks we have had a striking indication of what would happen at a national university. Many eminent professors, exercising their right as citizens, have spoken and written on the Venezuelan question, and immediately Jingoes in the press and elsewhere have assailed those professors as if they were traitors, idiots, or flunkeys. It makes no difference that Prof. von Holst of Chicago, or Prof. Moore of Columbia, or Profs C. E. Norton and Wm. James of Harvard, happen to plead for a sober consider ation of the Venezuelan quarrel and to denounce war as uncivilized, up jump the Jingoes, led by the loquacious Theodore Roosevelt, and scream, "What business have these college professors to meddle, anyway? They don't know anything about the subject, and if they did they ought to hold their tongues."

lecturing on economics, felt it his duty to
point out the fallacies of protection or free
silver, he would be squelched by McKinley or
Teller.

The truth is, that most of the most impor-
tant topics would be ruled out. Political eco-
nomy could not, for reasons just suggested, be
taught; nor the history of the Reformation,
because that would offend the Catholics; nor
the history of England, which would rouse the
Jingoes; nor criminology, for that would bring
out some unpleasant statistics about the Irish,
land so alienate the "Irish vote"; nor the his-
tory of the United States, for if the Mexican
war were truly narrated, it would anger the
present disciples of President Polk; and the
Rebellion could not be taught so as to satisfy
both Northerners and Southerners; nor could
Evolution, because all the orthodox would cry
out against a doctrine which deprives them of
the pleasure of believing that unbaptized in-
fants are damned.

Perfect freedom is the indispensable condi-
tion for the discovery and imparting of truth;
and at Washington that condition could not
exist. The advocates of the scheme, which
would give easy berths to a good many office-
seekers, protest, of course, that care would be
taken to maintain freedom of speech. But
there are many ways, besides gagging, of si-
lencing the preacher of unpopular doctrines,
and we cannot, doubt that they would all be
used. Probably no self-respecting professor
would accept such a position of servitude; cer-
tainly the most eminent professors, to whom
free speech is dearer than preferment, could

never be enticed into such a trap.
JANUARY 11, 1896.

THE COLORS OF MARYLAND.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE NATION:

T.

SIR: I see by the morning's papers that the medal recently presented to the Long Island Historical Society is garnished with a specially prepared ribbon, combining the colors of Brooklyn with "the colors of the State of Maryland-orange and black."

The colors of the State of Maryland are not
orange and black, but gold (or yellow) and
black. They are the colors of the Calvert
arms, which have been used in the seal and on
the flag of Maryland from early colonial times.
They can be seen on the original exemplifica

tion of arms to George Calvert (1622) in the
possession of the Maryland Historical Society,
in Gwillim or any manual of heraldry, or on
the State flag in the City Hall, Baltimore.
Orange is not a heraldic color.

The colors of the Baltimore Baseball Club
are, I believe, orange and black; but that is
not the State of Maryland.-I am, sir, etc.,
WM. HAND BROWNE.

MARYLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.

THE REASON FOR GLAZED PAPER.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE NATION:

Of course, only editors, or other persons with a magnified sense of their own importance and a lack of humor, who print three articles a month in the magazines and grant interviews to newspaper reporters every day, on any subject, would pooh-pooh the opinions of men like Norton, and Von Holst, and Wm. James, who think more than they talk. But should not this episode serve as a warning against any proposed national university, whose teachers would be at the mercy of every crank in Congress or out of it-for they would be regarded as public servants, unpermitted to say their souls were their own? If one of them dared to affirm that war is a crime, how quick-columns, and many readers of the Nation must ly would Senator Lodge-whom Milton, with prophetic genius, described so admirably in 'Paradise Lost,' Book II., 109-112-have him impeached or arrested. And if another, in

SIR: In your review of Grosvenor's 'Constantinople,' in No. 1594, I find this sentence: Unfortunately the paper is so highly glazed that the print cannot be read, especially by artificial light, without trying even the strong. est and most youthful eyes." This is no new complaint, but one frequently heard in your

be left in a state of wonder at the obstinacy of
publishers in using such paper in spite of re-
peated protests. Yet the reason for so doing
is simple. I have not seen Prof. Grosvenor's

book, but I understand that it is elaborately illustrated. Now it is perfectly understood by artists, engravers, printers, and publishers that decent printing of text cuts is possible only on this highly calendered paper to which your critic objects; and if such cuts are to be used at all, they must be printed on such paper or ruined in the printing. To me it seems that the publisher is praiseworthy rather than blameworthy for determining to print his cuts properly, but this is the judgment of an artist. A literary critic may be of the opposite opinion, but ought he not to recognize the reason for the publisher's choice, even in blaming it, and not leave it to be understood by the public that it is a mere matter of whim, or worse, of economy? The rough, hand-made paper which is the delight of bibliophiles is the despair of the poor designer of illustrations, and its use would probably lead to the abandonment of all illustration, or its restriction to such purely archaic adornment as Mr. Morris uses in the publications of the Kelmscott Press. KENYON Cox.

NEW YORK, January 19, 1896.

[We were perfectly aware of the cause of the use of glazed paper. The abuse we owe partly to the change in the mode of woodengraving in the quest for tint and halftone, and especially to the advent of cheap "process." Often, for the sake of a small number of cuts in the text, the entire readability of a book (hygienically speaking) is destroyed. The effect on text-books for the young in particular is deplorable when we consider all the temptations of that age to overtax the eyes.-ED. NATION.]

SCHOOLS IN FRANCE BEFORE THE
REVOLUTION.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE NATION:

SIR: The sweeping conclusion, impliedly endorsed by you in your recent note on public instruction in ante-Revolutionary France, to the effect that the French peasantry of the ancien régime were in the full enjoyment of an excellent system of primary education, needs much qualification.

The number and quality of rural schools vaStanley Weyman's low view of the mental ried widely from province to province-Mr. condition of the peasant being perfectly correct as to Brittany and the central provinces, and approximately so as to Gascony and the Toulousian; while your reviewer's opinion holds good as to the northern and northeastern provinces, where simple primary schools were abundant.

You point to the fact, as confirmatory of your general position, that in the districts now forming the department of the Meurthe-et-Moselle there were, in 1789, 599 communes. in 566 of which were one or more schools. As an offset to this, permit me to say that records of the time (cited by M. Taine) show that in Gascony "most of the rural districts are without schoolmasters," while in the Toulousian only "ten parishes out of fifty have schools." And in Brittany and the central provinces matters were even worse than in the south. M. Albert Babeau, whom you cite approvingly, gathers, from an inspection of marriage registers of the period, that in the Nivernois only "13 per cent. of the men and nearly 6 per cent. of the women" could sign their names. Taking, then, the average of these extremes, considering the kind of instruction likely to be doled

out to the lower classes by the French clergy in Voltaire's century, and not forgetting the bestial use made by Jacques Bonhomme of his newly acquired liberty in 1789, it would seem that the conclusions of your reviewer on "the universality and efficiency of village schools in France under the ancien régime" need revisal. W. R. K. MILWAUKEE, WIs., January 5, 1896.

[We cannot prolong this discussion. No monograph on the history of primary education in Brittany exists, to our knowledge, but M. Allain quotes M. Léon Maître for the district of Nantes, in which sixty-four out of eighty-one parishes had schools in the eighteenth century. We have further knowledge of the fact that La Chalotais, the famous Breton procureur-général of the Parlement of Rennes, published his 'Essai d'éducation nationale' in 1763, in which he complained, presumably from acquaintance with the condition of things in his own province, that "the Brothers of Christian Doctrine, who are termed ignorantins, teach reading and writing to people who ought only to learn how to draw plans and to handle the file and the plane, but who will no longer do so. . The laborers and artisans send their children to the local colleges." An echo to the complaints of La Chalotais is found in the complaints made to the Bishop of St.-Dié in 1779:

"There will never be any good popular education until the country schoolmasters, who depopulate alike the fields and workshops, are driven away. The complaints that the fields are left without workers, that the number of artisans is diminishing, and that the class of vagabonds is increasing, are due to the fact that our towns and villages are filled to overflowing with a multitude of schools. There is no hamlet without its grammairien."

With regard to central and southern France it may be allowed that in sparsely populated districts, like the mountains of Auvergne and the sandy wastes of the Landes, schools were few and far between in the last century, as they are at the present time; but even in the Landes there were, before the Revolution, 235 schools, though unequally distributed, in 330 communes. These statements of facts are mainly derived from the work of M. Allain on primary education in France before the Revolution, cited in the Nation for December 26, 1895.

As to the nature of the education given (Oxford: Clarendon Press; New York: Macin the village schools, it is true that it did millan), Mr. W. M. Lindsay presents a book not much exceed reading, writing, arith-based upon his large work called 'The Latin metic, singing, and the catechism; but Language' (lately reviewed in these columns),

even this amount of education must have

raised the French peasants, and did raise
them, from the condition of absolute
savages, which still remains the legendary
belief and is endorsed by Weyman in his
latest novel. "Bestial" is an absurdly
strong word to apply to the action of the
French peasants in 1789 in attacking the
châteaux of the nobility.-ED. NATION.]

Notes.

and containing the main doctrines of that work without the detail of evidence upon which they are founded. It is a convenient little volume of some 200 pages; the matter is well arranged and clearly expounded. It is intended for beginners in the study of the development of Latin declension and conjugation. The language of it is simple, avoiding all but the most necessary technical terms, and the book may be highly recommended to those for whom it was compiled.

In April, 1892, Mr. Timothy Hopkins of the Southern Pacific Company (of Kentucky) presented his railway books to Stanford University, and made generous provision for their increase. In order that the collection, which, by September, 1895, had grown to 9,245 books and pamphlets, might be made immediately useful to those interested in the subject-if

AN elaborate 'Dictionary of Philosophy and
Psychology,' edited by Prof. J. Mark Baldwin
of Princeton, will be issued by Macmillan &
Co., together with a treatise on 'The Architec- they be railroad men they may get passes to
ture of Europe: An Historical Study,' by Rus- California-and that the increase of the col-
sell Sturgis; 'The Anatomy of the Human lection might be facilitated, the library of the
Body,' by Drs. John Cleland and John Yule Stanford University recently put forth, as
Mackay, of Glasgow and Dundee; 'The Princi- number one of its publications, a 'Catalogue
ples of the Transformer,' an electrical work, of the Hopkins Railway Library,' by Frede-
by Dr. Frederick Bedell of Cornell; and 'Stu- rick J. Teggart, A.B. It is a quarto of 241
dies in Structure and Style,' by W. T. Brew. double-columned pages, arranged on a simple
ster of Columbia. The same publishers' spring classification with an index of personal names.
list embraces 'The United States of America,
It appears to be accurately made. The most
1765-1865,' by Edward Channing of Harvard; striking features of the library evident upon
'The Child and Childhood in Folk-Thought,' | cursory examination of the catalogue are the
by Alexander F. Chamberlain of Clark Uni-
versity; Vocal Culture in its Relation to Lite-
rary and General Culture,' by Prof. Hiram
Corson of Cornell; 'A Brief History of Eng-
lish,' by Prof. Oliver F. Emerson of Cornell;
'Woman under Monasticism: Chapters in
Convent Life and Saint Worship,' by Lina
Eckenstein; The Empire of the Ptolemies,' by
Prof. J. P. Mahaffy; Dante's 'Divine Comedy,'
rendered in the nine-line metre of Spenser by
George Musgrave, M. A., Oxford; Friedrich
Ratzel's History of Mankind,' translated by
A. J. Butler; the Works of Friedrich Nietzsche,
in eleven volumes, edited in English by Alex-ing values and assessments in Chicago, which
ander Tille; Georg Brandes's 'William Shak-
spere: A Critical Study,' translated by Wil-
liam Archer; a posthumous volume of 'New
Poems,' by Christina Rossetti; and a 'History
of Nineteenth-Century Literature,' by Prof.
Saintsbury.

G. P. Putnam's Sons announce 'The Histori. cal Development of Modern Europe from 1815 down to 1880,' by Prof. Charles M. Andrews of Bryn Mawr; 'The West Indies and the Spanish Main,' a history of settlements, by James Rodway; 'The Nicaragua Canal: its History and its Future,' by Prof. Lindley M. Keasbey; 'A History of Modern Banks of Issue,' by Charles A. Conant; 'Early Long Island,' by Martha Bochée Flint; The Perambulation of the Forest of Dartmoor,' by Samuel Rowe, with numerous illustrations; and a new edition of Dasent's Tales of the Fjeld,' with 100 illustra

tions by Moyr Smith.

Charles Scribner's Sons have nearly ready

M. Albert Babeau treats the whole question briefly, with references to authorities, in the first chapter of his 'Écoles de village pendant la Révolution,' in which he shows that he had formed a higher opinion of the extent of rural education in ante-Revolutionary France than in his earlier works, Le Village sous l'ancien régime' and 'La Ville rurale dans l'an-The Love Affairs of a Bibliomaniac,' by the cienne France.' He arrived at the conclusion endorsed by our correspondent, that primary education was more widely dif fused in the north and east than in central and southern France, but his conclusions need to be modified in a more favorable sense since the publication of numerous local monographs by Fayet, Combarieu, Allain, and others.

late Eugene Field. We should have mentioned
last week that they are the American publishers
of the "Warwick Library of English Litera-
ture," of which we gave some account.

T. Y. Crowell & Co. have in preparation
Shakspere's Heroes on the Stage,' by Charles
E. L. Wingate.

Ginn & Co. will publish next month Selec-
tions from Keats's Poems,' by Prof. Arlo Bates.

In his 'Short Historical Latin Grammar'

large pamphlet collections on the Erie and on the Pacific Railways, and the lamentable incompleteness of the sets of periodicals and reports. On page 191 curiosity is piqued by the entry, s. v. Southern Pacific Company, of “A collection of 740 pieces of stationery in use by the company. Album, folio."

The eighth biennial report of the Bureau of Labor Statistics of Illinois, on the subject of taxation, has been recently issued. It is a thoroughgoing single-tax document, and devoid of any new ideas on the subject; but it contains elaborate statistics of land and build

are not without value. The method by which the figures were ascertained for all the tables is described with praiseworthy fulness.

The ultra-conservative spirit of M. Ferdinand Brunetière's treatise, Éducation et Instruction' (Paris: Firmin-Didot), will be a surprise even to those long familiar with the author's stanch adherence to the Latin tradition in French literature and education. In a field where, though not a stranger, he is evidently not as much at home as in his own, the less agreeable traits of the great literary critic are so strongly marked as to become repellent. We cannot imagine that his acrimony and "terrible assurance" will change the opinions of many as to the relative educational value of Latin and the sciences, or aid his colleagues in strengthening the educative influence of their work. The subject of the treatise itself is important enough, and M. Brunetière's contribution to it will interest members of the faculties of our higher institutions.

Müller's Vademecum für Studierende' will prove attractive to all interested in German student life, and especially so to those who expect to become students in Germany. The first part of the book is devoted to fraternities, and a brief historical sketch is given of the four general classes into which these fraternities naturally group themselves: the Corps, the Landsmannschaft, the Burschenschaft, and the new or free Burschenschaft, which dates from