How far circumstances rather than principle controlled her treatment of other transmarine acquisitions does not seem to have been carefully examined by anyone.

The author has followed the usual custom of contrasting the Roman political capacity with the Greek lack of it. His limited comparison, however, has left a wrong impression. The Peloponnesian league was very similar to the Roman-Italic federation, and centuries earlier. It is true that the cultural development of Hellas tended to foster in individual and town a self-determination inimical to the growth of large political aggregates, whereas certain culturally-backward Greek peoples, the Ætolians and the Achæans, created a far more equitable federation than Rome ever dreamed of. The liberality of Rome, too, in granting her citizenship to subdued peoples is contrasted by Professor Frank, according to custom, with the Greek illiberality. In judging of this matter, however, it is necessary to take into account not only the state which bestows the citizenship but also the character of the people to be admitted. Occasionally a Greek state tried the experiment of admitting a large number of aliens, but such acts almost invariably resulted in revolution (Aristotle, Politics, 1303 a). Whereas Greeks stubbornly resisted political assimilation, the native Italians readily yielded to it.

An occasion on which the fetial rule could be tested offered itself in 264 B. C., when the freebooters, self-styled Mamertines, who had seized Messana, asked Rome for an alliance. They had been in occupation of this city almost twenty-five years, during which they had preyed upon their neighbors. No state, with the exception of a similar body of bandits who had seized Rhegium across the strait, had given them recognition of any kind. At length when menaced by the Syracusans they begged Rome for protection. At this time Rome had a treaty of friendship with Carthage and presumably with Syracuse. In spite of all these facts she came to the rescue of the Mamertines, who down to this point were the enemies of both. These are the essential facts gathered from Polybius (i, 7-11). In the opinion of many Romans and of Polybius (i, 10; iii, 26) the alliance was a breach of equity hard to justify; the only excuse was the protection of Italy from Carthaginian encroachments. Professor Frank, however, contends that "on the score of respectability there could be no serious objection to an alliance with the Mamertines," that they "had been recognized by both Carthage and Syracuse as a treaty-making power in good standing," and that as they were presumably autonomous, Rome "would not have to break the fetial rules in granting the request."

Here is regrettably a case in which the author's excessive zeal for the fetial institution has unconsciously biased his reproduction of the facts.

The author rightly accentuates a truth, by no means new, that the Roman democracy was more imperialistic than the aristocracy; and his remarks on pages 66-67 go far toward explaining this fact. The motive of the masses, beyond the very moderate military pay, was the acquisition of land and plunder. This fact, apparent on nearly every page of Roman military history, deals a deadly blow to the theory of benevolent expansion. On the side of the statesmen it is to be noted that as the aristocracy had established itself largely on the basis of successful military service, its new recruits from the lower class were naturally more eager than the older nobles to try their blades for the glory of their families. In a degree, however, the new and old were alike, and the responsibility for many a war connects itself with the consul's ambition for military fame. We have a right at least to suspect that such was the case with the Claudius who brought on the first war with Carthage, and it was certainly the motive of Flamininus in bringing on the second Macedonian war (Polybius, xviii, 10-12). Similarly the termination of a war may sometimes be explained by the temporary commander's desire to secure additional honor by making peace in anticipation of the arrival of his successor. An examination into the causes of the various wars waged by Rome in the Mediterranean basin would doubtless lead to the conclusion that principle played little part in the expansion of her power over this area.

One of the best features of the present work, on the other hand, is the citation of recent literature on the subject up to the date of publication. Particularly the treatment of earlier Roman history, together with the citation of recent literature, indicates the vast advance that has been made in that field since the publication of Mommsen's History of Rome.

GEORGE WILLIS BOTSFORD.

With Mr. Chamberlain in the United States and Canada: 1887-1888. By SIR WILLOUGHBY MAYCOCK. London, Chatto and Windus, 1914.-vi, 278 pp.

Sir Willoughby Maycock, who since 1903 has held what he describes as the important post of superintendent of the treaty department of the Foreign Office, was in this country with the late Mr. Chamberlain in 1887-1888, when the fishery treaty of 1888 was negotiated at Washington. According to his own statement he was associated in London with the late Edmond Yates, who in 1878 had established a society

journal known as The World. No American editor was ever more alert or more enterprising than Mr. Yates in collecting material adapted to the taste of his constituency; and Sir Willoughby Maycock had apparently scarcely landed in New York when Mr. Yates cabled him to send a few notes of the doings of the Chamberlain mission. The attaché of the mission accordingly sent The World a story of an afternoon reception in Mr. Chamberlain's honor, given in Washington by Dr. and Mrs. N. S. Lincoln. What the story was like can be realized from Sir Willoughby's retelling of it in his narrative, in book form, of the diplomatic mission of 1887-1888.

Of the many ladies who were present on this occasion, some wore morning dress and others low-necked evening attire, which struck me as odd. I recollect meeting there two pretty Miss Tiffanys, who hailed from Baltimore. They asked me to indicate which was Mr. Chamberlain. When I pointed him out one of them exclaimed, Why, I guess he's just lovely!" They paid no such compliment to me, alas! I could not resist telling him this little story, which the Pall Mall Gazette reproduced with an illustration. I am not sure that the chief quite appreciated it when he saw it. The artist Mr. (now Sir) F. C. Gould hardly did himself justice on that occasion.

A monograph on the Chamberlain mission to Washington, such as a man with Sir Willoughby Maycock's opportunities might have written, would have been a really valuable contribution to the history of the diplomatic relations between the United States and Great Britain and the Dominion of Canada since Confederation in 1867. But for the most part the texture of Sir Willoughby's book is not much better than the sample which has been quoted. There are menus of dinners and a program of a concert on the Umbria, on the voyage back to England in March, 1888. Two or three pages are devoted to Mr. Chamberlain's wooing of Miss Endicott; there is a page or two about the negro waiters at the Arlington Hotel in Washington; but the only value of the book, from the point of view of diplomatic history, is that it contains the interviews that Mr. Chamberlain gave to the reporters in New York, and verbatim reports of the more important speeches he made in New York, Philadelphia and Toronto, and of the speech he made in Birmingham at a banquet in his honor on his return to his home city.

No attempt is made by Sir Willoughby to describe the diplomatic situation of the fishery question when Mr. Chamberlain reached Washington. He does state that the reciprocity treaty of 1854, and the articles in the Treaty of Washington according reciprocal fishing privileges, had been denounced by the United States, "for reasons which

there is no need to discuss." Perhaps it is just as well that Sir W. Maycock thus lightly dismisses the denunciation in 1865 of the reciprocity treaty negotiated by the Earl of Elgin and Mr. Marcy in 1854, and the denunciation in 1884 of the nine articles of the Treaty of Washington and its protocols that accorded fishery privileges and conditional privileges in the coasting trade of the Great Lakes. The episode at Fortune Bay, Newfoundland, on January 6, 1878; the Marquis of Salisbury's long and persistent attempt to uphold the policy of Newfoundland in curtailing the treaty privileges of New England fishermen by local legislation; and the subsequent complete abandonment of the attempt by Great Britain in 1881, when an unsuccessful appeal of the Beaconsfield government to the constituencies had resulted in the return of the Liberals to power and the substitution of the Earl of Granville for the Marquis of Salisbury at the Foreign Office, is not an exhilarating chapter in the diplomatic history of the British NorthAmerican Dominions. Nevertheless, a book on Mr. Chamberlain's mission of 1887-1888 has little value for students with the Fortune Bay episode and the consequent strained relations ignored.

Apparently it was not Sir Willoughby's purpose to write a book of value to students of these diplomatic relations. But even if it were only the social aspects of the mission with which he was concerned, he might have stepped over from the Foreign Office to the large and wellequipped library of the Colonial Office, and verified his statements concerning Canadian statesmen of the era of the Washington treaty of 1888. Sir Charles Tupper will be surprised to learn from Sir Willoughby's pages that he was ever a member of the Dominion House of Commons for a New Brunswick constituency; for the last survivor of the Canadian statesmen of the era of Confederation is a Nova Scotian; and in a parliamentary career that extended from Confederation to 1900 he never represented at Ottawa any constituency outside the oldest of the Maritime Provinces. Canadian admirers of Sir John A. Macdonald also will scarcely appreciate the impression left by the author, that Macdonald was premier for the first time in 1878. Moreover, it will surprise Canadians to learn that Hamilton, Ontario, is a university city; and that the Toronto Board of Trade held its first annual banquet in 1888. The Toronto Board of Trade was in existence in the days of the United Provinces. It was incorporated as early as 1845; and it must have been much more self-denying than most Canadian Boards of Trade if it had had no annual banquets earlier than the year of the Chamberlain visit to Toronto. EDWARD PORRITT.

HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT.

Sir George Etienne Cartier. His Life and Times. By JOHN BOYD. Toronto, The Macmillan Company, 1914.-xxi, 439 pp.

Canadian statesmen cannot hitherto be said to have been fortunate in their biographies. Until Boyd's Life of Cartier was published, scarcely one of the Fathers of Confederation or any of the men in political life in the era of the United Provinces was commemorated by an adequate or comprehensive biography. Most of the biographies had an atmosphere of provinciality about them, probably because they were written before the Dominion of Canada had arrived, and in the day of small things in Toronto, Montreal, Quebec and Ottawa. The distinguishing feature of Mr. Boyd's Life of Cartier is the complete absence of this air of provinciality, and the success with which he has fitted Cartier into the political history of Canada from the Papineau and Mackenzie rebellions of 1837 to the coming of Manitoba into Confederation in 1871.

Until Sir Wilfrid Laurier came into prominence as leader of the opposition in the House of Commons in 1891, in ability and statesmanship Cartier was the most notable contribution of the province of Quebec to political life either in the old British North-American provinces or in the Dominion. He was quite as potent a factor in bringing about Confederation as Macdonald, or Galt of the Eastern Townships, or George Brown of Ontario, or Tupper of Nova Scotia. It is an open question whether Cartier was not more than Macdonald's equal in this great work, despite the fact that chief honors and most recognition in London fell to Macdonald, who during the last twenty years of his life staged some of his political achievements and made many of his speeches with an eye quite as much to Downing Street as to the electorate from which he drew his majorities in the House of Commons.

Cartier was worthy of a first-class biography, and Mr. Boyd has accorded him his due. The life and times of the lawyer-statesman who represented Quebec in the preliminaries and negotiations for Confederation, and in framing the constitution for the new Dominion, when he stood out for federal as distinct from legislative union, will rank with some of the best biographies of English statesmen; and it may well serve as a model for biographies of Canadians, such as those of Blake and Cartwright, which remain yet to be written.

Part of Mr. Boyd's task was to write the political history of Quebec and Ontario, of the United Provinces, and of the Dominion from the rebellion of 1837 to Cartier's death in 1873. He has been as successful in this part of his work as he has been in his presentation of the