cated, many of them cited from such works as those of Garofalo, Marro, Sighele, Ferri, Listz and Joly, and therefore already familiar to those who have followed discussions in this field; the net result being the persuasion in the mind of the judicious reader, that there is a considerable element of truth here, but that the truth has not yet freed itself from the exaggerated, the contradictory, and the fantastic. In the second part of the work, Lombroso deals with the prevention and treatment of crime, recommending various "penal substitutes"-a happy phrase of Ferri's-economic, political, scientific, legislative, religious and educational. The third part contains, among many other matters, a discussion of atavism and of penal philosophy. An appendix gives an interesting account of the progress made in criminal anthropology during the years 1895-98.

Mr. Drähms writes only partially in the sense and spirit of the "positive school," despite Lombroso's commendation of his work. Familiarity with the literature of the subject, experience as a prison chaplain, first-hand investigation of certain specific problems, and a competent and judicial mind, have fitted him to write a book of independent and distinct value. We have noticed, however, more typographical and other slight errors, and more awkward terms and phrases, than any book ought to have; and we wonder why such works as Pike's "History of Crime in England," Stephen's "History of the Criminal Law of England," and Winter's "Elmira Reformatory"-not to mention many others-were omitted from the appended bibliography. Both authors denounce our present methods of dealing with criminals. Lombroso calls the prison, “le pire de tous les remèdes, si tant est qu'on puisse l'appeler remède et non poison;" and Drähms says that "the prison from every point of view is the chief ostensible promoter of every ill it essays to cure, and offers the main incentive to crime . it is safe

to say, it succeeds in turning out more direct results in the shape of confirmed criminals .. than any other accredited agency within the range of experience or devised by the folly of man, resting in the consent of the masses."

W. F. B.

The History of Edward the Third (1327-77). By James Mackinnon, Ph.D. London: Longsmans, Green & Co., 1900-pp. viii+ 625. 8vo.

Dr. Mackinnon tells us in his preface that he has written “an independent contribution to the history of Edward III." But Edward's history is practically that of western Europe for half a

century. "This work is, therefore, more than a biography; it is a history of an important and dramatic epoch," and while the author has shunned "no labour to obtain original information" he has also "striven to reproduce it in a style in keeping with the dramatic character of the subject. But his "work is by no means an apology for its hero, as is the case with so many biographies"; based on "contemporary evidence," it is an attempt to represent Edward as "others saw him."

The book, however, is one of no more than ordinary merit. In the fir: place, despite his definition of "contemporary evidence," the author has given too much weight to the chronicles and too little to official documents and in his ambition to write an "original" treatise he has shunned to his own hurt the results of modern scholarship. The Chronographia Regum Francorum may have been neglected on the ground that it is not "contemporary evidence," but this cannot be said of Barbour's Brus, Jan de Klerk's Van den Derden Edewaert,' or Récits d'un Bourgeois de Valenciennes. The Rolls of Parliament and Rotuli Scotiae could have been used to greater advantage and there is no reference to the Parliamentary Writs, or the various Year Books and Calendars in the Rolls Series. We look in vain for such modern titles as Gasquet's The Great Pestilence, Ashley's James and Philip van Artevelde and Dr. Mackinnon is evidently unacquainted with the studies of Cunningham, Monod and Viollet. He has, therefore, produced

a life of Edward similar to one of some modern character compiled mainly from the newspapers. Such a biography would undoubtedly represent its hero as "others saw him," but would it meet the demands of the thoughtful reader?

It is then as a narrative history rather than as a critical study that the book must rest its claim. But even here it is often grievously at fault. For example, the uprising in favor of Isabella (pp. 7-12) was not, in the minds of the majority, directed so much against Edward as against his favorites. The account of Philip's "arbitrarily applying the Salic Law" (p. 37) is entirely incorrect.3 Edward's claims, as put forward (p. 38), in no way conflicted with those of Charles of Evreux.4

1 Translated into French by O. Delepierre.

'Apol. Ad. Orl., Parl. Writs, ii, Div. ii, p. 354.

4

Monod, Art. in Rev. Crit, d' Hist. et de Litt. 1892.

Nang., ii, 83-4.

A second reason for the author's failure lies in the fact that he is too intensely modern to appreciate the spirit of the times he is trying to portray. To him "a fool of a world is this misguided fourteenth century. Clearly lunatic . . . Heigho! what a perverted moral sense" (pp. 290-91) characterizes the clergy of the day and the warrior knight can be compared only to a "sporting athlete" (p. 214).

In his attempt at a "dramatic" style, Dr. Mackinnon informs us (p. 1) that "a more complete ninny than Edward II. has seldom occupied a throne." One is tempted to believe that he is reading comedy not tragedy, as royal messengers are continually "trotting" about or papal emissaries appear "jogging between the belligerents" (p. 461). The pope is a "political scarecrow" (p. 148). "Done for Scotland this time!" (p. 70) was the ejaculation on the lips of Englishmen" over a victory where a "toss-up" (p. 57) determined the sides which the contestants should take.

One note pervades the whole book—“the martial and imperious Edward III." (p. 2), “the Napoleon” (p. 35), or better the "Louis XIV" (p. 607) of the fourteenth century, whose reign is "one long story of war and aggression." Edward "as a warrior king" not only "dazzled the world of his day" (p. 608), but he has also blinded the eyes of his biographer to his other achievements.

That part of the book which deals with Scotch affairs is the best and most original. Edward, however, might have been given the credit of having a sincere belief in his right to the overlordship of Scotland. Dr. Mackinnon might have made out a stronger case against his methods by a closer study of authorities. In the Rolls of Parliament we find no mention of a March parliament for 1333 (p. 64), and the one that did meet in January2 was not at all enthusiastic over Edward's plans. The author overestimates the "consuming fire" of Scotch patriotism and so misjudges the actors in the events he describes.3

In regard to French affairs, the book is extremely unsatisfactory. The events during Isabella's supremacy are inadequately treated; and there is no good reason for attributing to Edward the same motives which actuated his mother; for passing over so lightly his maiden proclamation (p. 35); or for failing to recognize in his hom

1 This seems to be a "dramatic" translation of Murim., p. 68: Et sic dicebatur publice quod guerra in Scocia fuit finaliter finita et terminata.

Rolls of Parl., ii, 69, No. 7.

3 Compare Burton, Hist. of Scotland, ii, 306, 316.

age (p. 44) an evidence of his sincerity. Though the Hundred Years War was a "black record of international strife" (p. 39), Edward was not at the beginning at least the aggressor. As early as 1333,1 Philip had begun to meddle in Scotch affairs and Dr. Mackinnon admits the "potency of the Franco-Scottish alliance" (p. 79). In view of the fact that Edward did not declare war until the French had invaded Guienne2 it is difficult to see how it was the English king who "threw down the gauntlet (p. 93)

in his ambitious project of adding a third crown to those of England and Scotland" (p. 101).

The author is of course tripped up by Edward's claim to the French throne. But it is important to note that the first intimation of this claim in any official document comes in his foreign negotiations. Edward was seeking aid among those who for various reasons were nursing grievances against Philip. The assumption of this title might, therefore, prove efficacious in bringing the desired alliances. This is strikingly illustrated in the case of Flanders. There is strong presumption then that it was primarily a war measure. This view is strengthened by its absence, in spite of Artois' importunities, in Edward's proclamation to the English people, and by the renunciation of it in the Treaty of Bretigny in return for full sovereignty in Guienne. This suggests another side to the Hundred Years War (the commercial) which has escaped Dr. Mackinnon but which is admirably brought out by Cunningham.*

"The exaggerated reverence for royal prerogative" and Edward's inability to tolerate "rebellion against royal authority" (p. 490) must be expected from a fourteenth century king, and the author's inability to see this is another instance of his lack of sympathetic appreciation of the task before him.

The absence of an index and of an alphabetical list of authorities can hardly be condoned in these days of good book making. In short the need which so impressed Dr. Mackinnon with the idea. that "the history of Edward III. required to be written" has hardly been met by the appearance of his book.

Wells College.

1 Foed., ii, 860.

Foed., ii, 989.

8 Foed., ii, 991, 1001.

Art. in Pub's. of Roy. Hist. Soc. 1889.

WALTER IRENAEUS LOWE.

Chicago Conference on Trusts: Speeches, Debates, Resolutions, List of the Delegates, Committees, etc. Held September 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 1899. Chicago: The Civic Federation of Chicago, 1900.

The Chicago Conference on Trusts was a notable gathering in at least two particulars; first, in the width of the interests represented, and second, in the somewhat remarkable unanimity of opinion upon some of the principal points at issue. The conference was called "for the purpose of eliciting the fullest possible discussion of such subjects from all standpoints." To this end the Civic Federation invited the governors of the various States and the leading commercial, industrial and labor organizations, the colleges and the universities, to send delegates. During the four days' conference, nearly one hundred speakers were heard, each phase of the subject, so far as possible, being represented by its ablest advocates. The speakers represented the several interests in the following proportions: men representing public life, seventeen; economists and statisticians, sixteen; business men, fifteen; lawyers, twelve; representatives of labor, eight; representatives of the agricultural interests, five; editors, four; socialists, two; and representatives of the Protective Tariff League, the New England Free Trade League, the Anti-Trust League, the Single Tax League, the New York Reform Club, the Western Industrial League, and Anarchism, one each.

If one wishes to know what the politician, the business man, the economist, the lawyer, the labor leader, the farmer or the representatives of any of the lesser organizations, think of the trust and its effect on the economic, social or political life of the nation, he will find in this report an "open sesame."

One would expect to find in the addresses of men representing interests so varied, little that is common either in regard to the nature of trusts or the specific remedies demanded at this juncture in their development. Such in general is the fact. Still, as the discussion. proceeded, it was apparent "that all shades of opinion had much ground in common." Upon one point the speakers were all but a unit-viz: that all artificial aids to the trust, such as railway discriminations, special privileges, tariff favors, etc., must be abolished. Closely connected with this demand was the predominating sentiment that competition is to be the controlling factor in the future as it has been in the past, and consequently that the most hopeful and fertile field for legislation will be found in maintaining a "fair field and no favors" in the industrial world.