he felt when he beheld this or that, and how such things impressed him, and at rare intervals he may take you to a little window and show you a bit of landscape." This is probably a better characterization of the later Jacobean manner than of the earlier, and thus it is not applicable to more than a few of the chapters of Mr. James's "Italian Hours," just published. In this volume are collected notes on Venice, Rome, Florence, Perugia, Siena, Milan, Ravenna, and other Italian towns-notes whose dates of setting down are mainly in the seventies of the last century. But an occasional paper of contemporary date gives an opportunity for a comparison of the objective and the subjective methods of travel observation. It also serves to set side by side the comparatively simple style which was Mr. James's thirty years ago and the elaborate involution of structure which to-day is the despair of many and the delight of a few. But whichever his method and whatever his style, Mr. James is in these papers always interesting, always picturesque, always full of suggestion. The fine Italian charm which glows in his descriptions is expressed in another medium in this volume by Mr. Joseph Pennell, probably the foremost illustrator of architectural subjects of his day. More than thirty drawings in color in Mr. Pennell's distinctive style reproduce Italian streets and gardens, palaces and churches, towers and gateways. In addition the book is a dignified and beautiful specimen of the art of book-making. (Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston. $7.50.)

The work of Mr. Pennell, this time in black and white, is the distinguishing feature of another volume-on "French Cathedrals." More than a score of cathedrals, churches, monasteries, and abbeys are depicted in pen and ink, pencil and wash dravings, and in etchings-among them Ire Dame de Paris, Rheims, Chartres, Bourges, Rouen, Beauvais, Mont St. Michel, and the less familiar Le Puy, Arles, and Albi. Mr. Pennell draws with a sure hand, directed by an imagination keen and quick to catch the spirit, the peculiar flavor, of a landscape, a building, a bit of architecture. He not only shows what the architect has accomplished, but suggests what he was aiming at, the idea which informed his work. text which accompanies the pictures is by Mrs. Pennell, and presents gracefully bits of personal experience combined with historical and architectural information. (The Century Company, New York. $5.)

The

In a recently published volume Dr. Edward A. Steiner, who has often written for The Outlook, treats the broad subject of "Immigration" in relation to the phenomena of its ebb and flow. In the first part of his book he has "tried to show the influences of the returned immigrant upon his peasant home and his social and national life;" in the second part he interprets "the relation of various races to our institutions, their at

titude toward them and their influence upon them." Dr. Steiner writes from the standpoint, not of the statistician, but of an observer and student of humanity. The immigrant is to him, not a unit in a vast problem, but an individual man or woman, boy or girl, with his own life problems to be solved either in the New World or in the Old with experience gained in the New. (Fleming H. Revell Company, New York. $1.50.)

In "Christianity at the Cross-Roads " George Tyrrell undertakes to point out a radical difference between Modernism in the Roman Catholic Church and Modernism in the Protestant Churches. We do not think that he succeeds. He does, however, make clear two radical differences in the conception of Christianity. The first difference is this: According to one view, Christian faith is regarded as a gift from heaven to be preserved through all the ages in substance and in form as it was originally imparted by Christ and his Apostles to the primitive Church; according to the other, it is regarded as a living seed from which forms of organization, forms of worship, and forms of thought have been developed. In this latter view Christianity is a living growth, constantly changing in its methods and in its forms, though remaining essentially the same in its undefinable spirit of life. The other difference is between those who believe that Jesus Christ taught an apocalyptic Christianitytaught, that is, his disciples to anticipate his speedy return to power and glory with his holy angels to establish by miraculous interference a celestial kingdom on the earth-and those who believe that Jesus Christ taught that the Kingdom of God would not immediately appear, but would grow up gradually like a plant from a seed in the ground, requiring for its completed development a length of time which he did not disclose to his disciples, and which he declared that he did not know himself. Both these conceptions regard Jesus as a Messiah, but the one as a Messiah developing, and the other as a Messiah of an instantaneous and completed kingdom. Dr. Tyrrell apparently holds the development conception of Christianity, but also apparently holds this apocalyptic conception. The two seem to us to be absolutely inconsistent, and, while we recognize the fact that there are some chapters in the Gospels which give color to the apocalyptic conception, we are sure that one main object of Christ's instructions was to teach his disciples that this Pharisaical conception was wrong and to substitute for it the other conception of a kingdom coming by gradual development. Dr. Tyrrell's book is of interest because it is an interpretation of the modern spirit in the Roman Catholic Church, and also because it is a posthumous publication, and thus is the last word to the world of a devoted, saintly, and able modern scholar in the Roman Catholic communion. (Longmans, Green & Co., New York. $1.50.)

SUPPOSE-AND THE ENGLISH BUDGET

That creature of vested interets, your American business man, apparently rejects the English Budget with all his vested soul. It is a "Socialistic blackleg," a criminal stiffening the money rate, upsetting trade. What England needs is a tariff wall, and that is all there is about it. Now I personally do not object to the American business man thinking this, provided that he knows what he is talking about. But that is just what he does not know; he is perfectly ignorant of the conditions out of which the Budget has grown. It is those conditions I want to put before him-a few of them, at least-in a few brief suppositions, and then ask him if revolution in England looks so criminal to him.

Suppose your country, America, had a deficit of $75,000,000. That is what England had last April. Again, suppose that in your country, America, one-tenth of the people owned nine-tenths of the land. That is the proportion in that little British Isle. Again, picture to yourself that a great deal of that land was entailed so that it could not be sold, and picture to yourself the rest of the land, the land that could be bought, held at such an exorbitant rate that gradually the small landowner, unable to work it longer at a profit, had been driven off it, so that you found yourself with a population of 40,000,000, 12,000,000 of whom were at starvation point. Can you not imagine that under such conditions even the vested heart of the American business man might, in sheer desperation, rush into some sort of an old age pension act? I can.

Still again, imagine in your American land this state of affairs-picture to yourself that the one-tenth of the people who own most of the land, and either cannot or will not sell it, picture them time and again charging you city ground rents on land on which they are paying only agricultural rates. That is the state of affairs in the Budget country.

Another state of affairs you may not quite take in is this: Suppose you wish to build a house; you cannot buy any land, so you hire some land for sixty years from a duke. You build your house on it, with your own hard-earned money. At the end of sixty years your land lease expires and the house and garden you have built with your hardearned gains is no longer yours. When the lease expires, the house becomes the property of the duke. I do not seem to see the American citizen standing for that state of affairs very long. Picture again the case of Gorringe on American soil. Gorringe hires land of the Duke of Westminster, builds a great store and business on it, and when his lease falls in, the Duke allows him to renew it, but on condition that Gorringe give the Duke three-quarters of the profits. I do not see the American business man standing for that very long either!

Lastly, suppose, O vested American heart, that you had to see this precious country of yours losing the very soul of modern progress, economic efficiency-had to sit by and see your rivals stealing your markets, underselling you on every side, while you, with the incubus on your chest of an old landowning system made for the few, sat smothering in over-population, twenty men to one position, and no scope anywhere.

If you saw something like these conditions in America, would you not write a Budget that should redistribute, revalue, and reassess the lands of America, even if that redistribution and retaxation meant revolution?

I think that you would-with this difference that, whereas the English Budget makers by their death duties allow about two hundred years for the big estates to be disintegrated, you would not allow two hundred years. You, if I read you aright, would want to do it in about twenty-five minutes. A CRITIC.

[We do not believe that the American business man is quite so black as our correspondent would paint him, or that he is quite so opposed to the Lloyd-George Budget as our correspondent supposes. Nevertheless, our correspondent gives a very interesting picture of some of the conditions in Great Britain which have given rise to this measure of taxation.-THE

momentous

EDITORS.]

votes.

Householders: All males over twenty-one years who have paid the rent of a house, shop, or place of business from July to July can vote on the register which comes out after the first year of occupation has expired. For example, a man who becomes a tenant of a house or other place before July, 1908, is put upon the register of voters made out in July, 1909, and any one on this list is entitled to vote at any election during the year 1910.

Lodgers: Any male over twenty-one years

of age who has occupied a room in a house for the twelve months ending in July can vote the next year. For instance, if he has occupied the room from July, 1908, to July, 1909, he may make application in July, 1909, to be put on the register of voters for 1910. He must make a declaration that he has occupied the room for the twelve months mentioned and has paid at least five shillings a week for the room unfurnished. He is then entitled to vote at any election during 1910 in the same way as a property-owner or a householder. The difference between the householder and the lodger is that the latter must make an application and a declaration each year, whereas the householder is put on the list automatically by the collector of taxes.

The vote is taken in a way somewhat similar to that in the United States. When Parliament is dissolved, writs for a general election are issued and sent to the election officers in all the constituencies. Each officer thereupon appoints a day to receive nominations for candidates. If there is only one candidate, the nomination is equivalent to election. If the seat is contested, the actual election is held a few days later. The date is fixed for each constituency by the election officer, within certain limits prescribed by law. The polling in the various constituencies, therefore, does not take place on one day, but extends over a period of about three weeks. Polling places are fixed upon (usually in the public schools), polling clerks are put in charge, and voters have to present themselves to record their vote at the polling place appointed for their district. When a voter arrives at the polling booth, a slip is given him bearing the names of the candidates in alphabetical order (usually there are two candidates, but sometimes more than two), and he puts a cross against the name of the man for whom he wishes to vote. He then puts this slip in the ballotbox, the ballot being secret. The poll opens at eight in the morning and closes at eight in the evening on the appointed day, and none of the boxes are opened until the poll has closed. Then all the boxes are taken to one place (usually the Town Hall), the votes counted, and the result declared.-THE EDITORS.]

DR. LEA AS A HISTORIAN

In The Outlook recently, under the caption "Five Eminent Americans," there is a statement that seems especially deserving of protest because it is found in your publication, which has the undoubted reputation of being serious in tone, honest in purpose, and reliable. Those who read the following, concerning the late Dr. Lea, "None ever justly impugned his good faith, his impartiality, his industry, or his inflexible determination to secure the exact truth," might perhaps infer that at times inaccuracies or questionable statements can be found even in The Outlook.

This praise of Dr. Lea is, to say the least, extreme; and to those who know the contents of Dr. Lea's famous works this whitewashing is quite unbearable, because all fair-minded students of ecclesiastical history are aware that the words "none," " ever,' "justly," "impugned," "good faith," and "impartiality," in the quotation above, cannot be applied to Dr. Lea. A study of the articles cited beneath,' which are a few now at my reach, will dispel any doubt about any one ever having justly impugned Dr. Lea's good faith and impartiality in securing the exact truth. Moreover, these same articles will abundantly show that, as a historian, Dr. Lea was often illogical in his conclusions, frequently unscholarly in his references, as well as greatly biased in his judg ments, not to speak of his inaccuracies and confusion in the use of manuscripts.

When a writer devotes his life and fortune to gathering material which concerns exclusively corruption, immorality, and scandal, choosing the blackest accusations against an institution, one is certainly justified in suspecting that the writer is not only partial in the choice of his subject matter, but partial also in his attitude. Again, had Dr. Lea been in good faith in his efforts to secure the exact truth, surely he would, in the subsequent editions of his works, have corrected the errors and false conclusions that had been pointed out in his first editions. The London "Athenæum," the "Church Quarterly," and the "Guardian," all non-Catholic publications, in their reviews of Dr. Lea's books, have made evident the partiality and bad faith of the late historian.

Though The Outlook has dubbed him "eminent," and placed his name with those who are so, I fear Dr. Lea's eminence is not as honorable as that of the others.

In view of all this, I regard the statement quoted from The Outlook as unjustifiable, and I trust you will do me the courtesy of publishing the references which I submit in rebuttal.

OWEN A. MCGRATH, C.S.P. Church of St. Paul the Apostle, Paulist Fathers, New York.

[The Outlook's estimate of Dr. Lea's work is that of the world of scholars. At home and abroad the most critical of learned bodies have welcomed him to membership.

"Catholic University Bulletin," Vol. I, pp. 428 sq. Ibid., Vol. II, pp. 50-61.

"American Catholic Quarterly," Vol. XVI, pp. 131158. Ibid., Vol. XIII, pp. 385-404.

"American Ecclesiastical Review," Vol. XXI, pp. 337-349.

The "Catholic World," March, 1897.

Boudinhon's article in "Revue d'histoire et de littérature religieuses," 1897.

Vacandard's "La pénitence publique dans l'église primitive," Paris, 1903.

Battifol's "Etudes d'histoire et de théologie positive," Paris, 1902.

G. Bonaccorsi's Italian version of Rauschen's "L'Eucaristia e la Penitenza ne' primi sei secole," PP: 199 sq. Firenza, 1809.

"Catholic Encyclopedia" (Appleton), Vol. III, pp. 481 sq.

London "Athenæum," September 19, 1896.

By the craft of historians in America he has long been recognized as our foremost mediævalist; and no American historian has won from those of the Old World such esteem for his learning, for his critical insight, for his dispassionate fairness. When, a score of years ago, his history of the Inquisition drew to him the attention of the leading organ of German historical scholarship, the eminent mediævalist who reviewed the work found his critical method worthy of a German, and declared Mr. Lea not only the first to base a history of the Inquisition on the documents, but the first to write of it in a spirit tolerant even toward intolerance. Lord Acton, the most learned of English Catholics and himself a profound student of precisely this field of Church history, told the British public that "the work will assuredly be accepted as the most important contribution of the New World to the religious history of the Old." The Belgian Paul Fredericq, the foremost European investigator of the Inquisition's history, writing, a dozen years later, an introduction to the French translation of Mr. Lea's book, pointed out that, many as had since become the students of this subject, not one had found in the work of Mr. Lea ground for a valid stricture. Nor does this chorus of praise proceed alone from Protestants and liberal Catholics. Though Mr. Lea was frankly a foe of much in the teaching and the practice of the Church of Rome, he was an upright and a generous foe; and even his opponents have not failed to recognize this. The able French churchman, the Abbé Vacandard, who in 1906 published a volume on the Inquisition in express correction of Mr. Lea's, admits not only the learning and ability of the latter, but its regard for historical truth and "its incontestable marks of intellectual probity," and urges only that it is not final, and, though honest, not impartial. Even the German Ultramontane Baumgarten, who has furnished a general antidote to Mr. Lea's writings in his somewhat supercilious little volume (now translated also into English and widely circulated in America) on "The Works of Henry Charles Lea," feels constrained to allow him not only industry and a large though inadequate erudition, but "a much better knowledge of Catholic teaching and practice than is usual among non-Catholic historians."-THE EDITORS.]

NOT ELIA, BUT A DUKE

In the issue of The Outlook for October 30 was published an account from the pen of Mr. E. V. Lucas of "A Hitherto Unknown Statuette of Charles Lamb." Mr. Lucas now writes to The Outlook, inclosing copies of correspondence published in the London "Times" following the appearance of the same article in that journal. Mr. Lucas writes: "You will see that the authenticity of the statuette has been challenged, and very possibly Lord Ronald Sutherland Gower is right. But the statuette looked like Lamb to me and to many others. I am sorry for the confusion

and for landing The Outlook with a goose instead of a swan."

The letters are in part as follows:

To the Editor of the " Times:"

Sir: The statuette described... by Mr. E. V. Lucas in the "Times" of to-day-a Parian or biscuit statuette at Brighton-appears to me to be that, not of "Elia," but of my grandfather, the first Duke of Sutherland.

The description of it tallies with a statuette of the first Duke, of which there are two-one here (Stafford House) and another at Dunrobin.

The "folio volumes piled beneath a florid chair" the same as in that supposed to be Charles Lamb, "the head tilted a little backwards and resting on his right hand," the "large Wellingtonian nose," are all in the statuette of my grandfather.

I do not think Lamb's nose was half so large as that of the Duke, whose nose out-Wellington'd Wellington's.

There is no artist's name on the statuette; it probably dates to the year 1830. Yours faithfully,

RONALD SUTHERLAND Gower. Stafford House, St. James's, S. W.

Sir,-. . . . . Happily . . . Lord Ronald Sutherland Gower states that the statuette is unnamed. Since this is so, and since the figure was to my eyes, when I first saw it, unmistakably Lamb, and is still so like certain of the portraits, and since it was confidently described as Lamb by the late Henry Willett, I hope, even at the risk of adding to the sculpture mysteries of the world and of your correspondence columns, that Lord Ronald Sutherland Gower will produce more evidence. The statuette being unnamed, both claims, I take it, rest rather upon tradition than absolute fact. But no doubt there would exist documentary proof that the first Duke of Sutherland sat for such a figure.

Yours faithfully, Kingston, Lewes, Nov. 12.

Sir,-.

E. V. LUCAS.

The first Duke of Sutherland sat probably to more painters and sculptors than any individual not a Sovereign-in his youth he was painted by Reynolds, by Romney, and by Cosway; and in his old age by Owen and Phillips, by whom there is a fine portrait of him in the National Gallery. I have known the statuette of him for over a half-century at Stafford House and at Dunrobin; and there has never been any idea that this was not my grandfather, than that his portraits by the painters and sculptors already alluded to were not of him.

Yours faithfully,

RONALD SUTHERLAND GOWER. Hammerfield, Penshurst, Kent, Nov. 13.

Sir,-. . . .

Whether it is more honorable for a duke to be mistaken for an essayist or an essayist for a duke I leave to others to decide; but it is amusing to recall that a hundred years ago plus a few weeks Lamb anticipated for himself this very apotheosis. Writing to Manning on January 2, 1810, he says:

"I have made a little scale supposing myself to receive the following various accessions of dignity from the King, who is the fountain of honor:-As at first, 1, Mr. C. Lamb; 2, C. Lamb, Esq.; 3, Sir C. Lamb, Bart.; 4, Baron Lamb of Stamford; 5, Viscount Lamb; 6, Earl Lamb; 7, Marquis Lamb; 8, Duke Lamb. It would be like quibbling [he adds] to carry it on further. . . ."

I am, yours faithfully, Kingston, Lewes, Nov. 20.

E. V. LUCAS.

"PRO BONO PUBLICO"

The following statements appear in the editorial" Pro Bono Publico " in your issue for November 27 last: "Senators represent their respective States; Representatives

their respective districts. Only the President represents the Nation."

Apparently what you meant by the latter statement was that the President, the representative of the Nation in the capacity of Chief Executive, is the only representative of the Nation chosen directly (owing to the failure of the Electoral plan) by the Nation. The Nation is represented by the President, Senate, and House of Representatives; ie., these delegates "stand in the place of" the people of the Nation, who act officially as a Nation only through them, each within his or its Constitutional limits. Another point it seems to me The Outlook has not made clear in recent issues; namely, that, although a Representative "stands in the place of" his constituency, his first duty is to consider the interests of the whole people. Historically, the pure democracy having been found impractical, the representative system was adopted by a certain number, selecting one to stand in their place in council and exercise their functions for them. In the pure democracy each member acted for the interests of the whole; in the representative system, in theory, though the practice (with some exceptions) has deteriorated, the representative is a legislator for the whole, and is bound to act for the interests of the whole. The following quotation is from Cooley's "Constitutional Law," third edition, page 42: "But aside from practical difficulties, the right to instruct representatives cannot on principle be sustained. Representatives are chosen in States and districts; but when chosen they are legislators for the whole country, and are bound in all they do to regard the interests of the whole. Their own immediate constituents have no more right than the rest of the Nation to address them

through the press, to appeal to them by petition, or to have their local interests considered by them in legislation. They bring with them their knowledge of local wants, sentiments, and opinions, and may enlighten Congress respecting these, and thereby aid all the members to act wisely in matters which affect the whole country; but the moral obligation to consider the interest of one part of the country as much as that of another, and to legislate with a view to the best interests of all, is obligatory upon every member, and no one can be relieved from this obligation by instructions from any source. Moreover, the special fitness to legislate for all, which is acquired by the association, mutual information and comparison of views of a legislative body, cannot be had by the constituency, and the advantages would be lost to legislation if the right of instruction were recognized." ROBERT S. WICKHAM.

Schuylervile, New York.

[No doubt Mr. Cooley presents the ideal position of a Representative. But in fact he does represent chiefly, and in many cases almost exclusively, his district, and it is very

rarely the case that he has knowledge of the various conditions existing in various parts of the country to represent the Nation, even if his prejudices did not prevent him from doing so. It would be asking quite too much of human nature to expect that a Representative from Maine or Massachusetts could truly represent the interests of a cattleraising district in the Far West or the sugar districts of Louisiana.-THE Editors.

WHY WAS IT DONE?

John M. Walsh, who was President of the defunct Chicago National Bank, and was convicted of misapplying the funds of his bank and sentenced to five years' penal servitude, has been lately refused a rehearing of his case by the United States Court of Appeals. While the Court would not admit him to bail, they have allowed him to live at home and engage in his usual occupations under the surveillance of a United States marshal. I question if the leniency is not due to the Chicago Banking Association, which assumed some of his obligations, and hope that, if he is given time, they may be reimbursed. I doubt if this favor would ordinarily be given, and to such of our people, who are a host, as follow the lead of such papers as Hearst's, etc., it is convincing proof that there is one law for the rich and another for the poor. Is it any wonder that there is such a lack of respect for law and the courts in this country?

Waukegan, Illinois.

LEWIS H. WILLIAMS.

[There should be no discrimination belaw. The conviction of Mr. Walsh in Chitween rich and poor in the administration of cago and of Mr. Morse in New York, in spite legally fighting their cases, is an encourof the great resources at their command for stand the principle of equality before the aging indication that American juries underlaw. If the court officials have permitted Mr. Walsh to work at his financial affairs at his office under police surveillance for his own private comfort, our correspondent's implied criticism seems reasonable; if, how

ever, the Court has taken its action without regard to Mr. Walsh for the public good, we regard it as justifiable.-THE EDITORS.]

CREDIT WHERE DUE

In the editorial on the recent performance of Beethoven's D major Mass, contained in The Outlook for December 11, the writer fails to give credit to the Musical Union of Oberlin College in his enumeration of the previous American performances of this work. This society performed the mass entire in June, 1902. Oberlin, Ohio.

EDWARD DICKINSON.

[The Outlook is glad to print this communication from a member of the Department of History and Criticism of Music at Oberlin College.-THE EDITORS.]