than the people of Russia or the student of public finance. It is difficult to place implicit confidence upon the figures submitted in the budget reports; and this confidence is further shaken by a comparison of results with promises, after the budget has been closed. The true balancing of income and expenditure is not only never attained, but the differences are so large as to be difficult of explanation on any reasonable grounds.

The volumes of Bloch are what might be expected of this distinguished exponent of peace principles. He arrays his facts in almost a strict chronological order, taking the figures of each year's accounts and giving with them the more important intentions of the minister of finance, the projects of reform or change, and the administrative regulations introduced. The reader will find in these annals a fair presentation of the facts and an orderly arrangement, which, however, would have been far more useful with an index. Unfortunately the work closes with 1882, and many of the most important changes in financial policy have been introduced since that time. It suffers too from the absence of definite criticism of the many schemes which the necessities of the state have called forth. That the whole financial system was "vicious" until about 1870 is admitted, and it is interesting to note how far the author admits that many of the vices are still existent. So much depends upon this spirit of interpretation that it is only by reading between the lines that the real attitude of M. Bloch can be determined. His story is a very simple one on its face. It is that of a long series of deficits, covered by emissions of paper money and foreign loans. The remarkable growth of ordinary and extraordinary expenses, with a slower development of ordinary revenues, marks the weak point in the system, and explains why resort is had to so many expedients for raising money. Taxation tends to become ineffective, and the arrears of unpaid taxes and dues have increased. New taxes are in part neutralized by the real poverty of the country, the heavy cost of collection, war, and the desire of government to encourage domestic industries. The value of the paper money has been another difficulty, and the political relations with other powers have imposed upon Russia undertakings that weigh upon her finances without making as yet any returns. M. Bloch gives a long list of expedients for obtaining an adequate revenue, but they all seem to have fallen short, driving the government to its usual resource the foreign money market. The fact is noted that the offer of the bonds of the United States in Europe during the Civil War exercised a detrimental influence on Russian securities, but the subsequent wanderings of the im

perial stocks from London to Berlin and from Berlin to Paris, in response to political exigencies, belong to a later period than is covered by these volumes of M. Bloch.

Russlands Finanzpolitik is more concerned with the sources of Russia's wealth, and especially with the agricultural condition of the empire. There will be found a close study of the ownership and cultivation of the land, and if the conclusions are sombre, the author appears justified by the facts. A part of these conditions has grown out of measures of internal policy, like the disposition made of the land at the emancipation of the serfs. Another part is due to such worldmovements as the fall in the price of grain. That Russia is threatened with an agricultural proletariat is demonstrated, although the situation is not hopeless. The programme of reforms is a long one, calling for much intervention on the part of the state. It involves practically every phase of agricultural activity, from the education of the peasant in methods of cultivation to the regulation of the export of the product. It is impossible even to summarize the recommendations of our author, for they involve a recasting of the social life of rural Russia, and approach the revolutionary in their application.

WASHINGTON, D.C.

WORTHINGTON CHAUNCEY FORD.

The Unreformed House of Commons, By EDWARD PORRITT, assisted by ANNIE G. PORRITT. Cambridge, at the University Press, 1903. Two volumes, 623, 584 pp.

By the "unreformed House of Commons" Mr. Porritt means the representative branch of Parliament as it was before the Reform Act of 1832. But the term, as it is used in the title of this work, is also made to cover a discussion of the Scotch parliament and of the Irish house of commons as they were before the Acts of Union, and of the representation of Scotland and Ireland in the unreformed imperial Parliament. The authors discuss borough and county representation in all the three kingdoms, from their origin in the later middle age to their union and consolidation in the electoral system of Great Britain as it was in the early nineteenth century. In Scotland also the lords, as well as the commons, are brought within the limits of their subject, because both orders sat together in the same house. In the treatment of the English and Irish parliaments, however, only such reference is made to the Lords as is required to explain the relations which existed between the commons and the respective upper houses.

But the authors have done much more than to describe the electoral systems in the three kingdoms and to trace their historical development. They treat at length of the relations between members and their constituents, whether the latter were communities or patrons. The usages and procedure of the houses are also the object of prolonged attention; in the case of the English house no less than eleven chapters are devoted to this subject. Among them appears an original and valuable discussion of the evolution of the speakership from its early condition of dependence on the crown to its modern attitude of non-partisanship. The personnel of the House of Commons, its relations with the press, the privileges of its members, and even its officials, the places of its meeting and the method of creating the members, receive detailed attention. Briefer accounts are given of the same features in the development of the other houses. In the case of the Irish parliament interesting chapters are also devoted to the workings of the Poynings law and to the history of the Act of Union of 1800. The material which is brought together in these chapters covers much the same ground in the early modern period as that relating to the middle age which is given by Stubbs in his chapter on the antiquities of Parliament. The information thus brought together not only shows how the houses were elected, but how and under what conditions their business was done.

The plan of the present work excludes, so far as possible, all reference to efforts in favor of parliamentary reform. The history of that movement is reserved by the authors for possible treatment in the future. Their efforts in the volumes now published have been confined to an exposition of what the old Parliament was and of the electoral system which was connected with it. For this purpose extensive use has been made of the journals and statutes of the three parliaments concerned, of parliamentary histories and other reports of debates, of correspondence, memoirs and a great variety of historical and biographical material. Unprinted sources have been used only to a limited extent.

The work is based on wide though not exhaustive research and is of great value. It is a decidedly original contribution to the study of the English constitution. It deals with a group of facts to which little systematic attention has hitherto been paid. Its subject lies in the immediate rather than the remote past, and therefore it helps directly to explain the growth of institutions as they now are. It helps to bridge the as yet unspanned gulf which lies between the medieval constitution and the political system of the present time.

The book, however, is not a literary success. It has neither introduction nor conclusion. It contains very little generalization. No

attempt is made to give a picture of the political society of which the old electoral and parliamentary system was the consummate flower. The subject was apparently not grasped as a whole, or in its setting, but in parts. The book does not indicate that the authors had dwelt intellectually in the old aristocratic society of Great Britain long enough to become thoroughly conversant with it. It indicates diligent notetaking rather than wide reading and prolonged meditation. The book is therefore hard to read. It is a work to be consulted rather than read through. Though of great value as a contribution to knowledge, it is not itself in all respects a finished product.

HERBERT L. OSGOOD.

Self-Government in Canada and how it was achieved: The Story of Lord Durham's Report. By F. BRADSHAW. London, P. S. King and Son, 1903. 414 PP.

It does not seem likely at present that Mr. Chamberlain will succeed in convincing the British people that preferential tariffs are necessary to the preservation of the empire, but at least he has the satisfaction of knowing that his agitation has aroused the keenest public interest in colonial questions. Of the many books dealing with those questions which have appeared in the last half decade, few, if any, teach such valuable lessons as are to be found in the volume under review. Great Britain has never faced a more difficult colonial problem than that which confronted her in Canada at the close of the Seven Years' War, and the story of her struggles to find a satisfactory solution is one of the most instructive chapters in the history of the empire. The central feature of the book is an exhaustive analysis of Lord Durham's report. But to appreciate this document one must have a picture of the social, economic, religious and political conditions of the country at the time when it was written. One hundred and twelve pages are accordingly devoted to a sketch of the history of Canada from the English conquest in 1760 to Durham's arrival in 1838. The "rule of the soldiery," the constitutions of 1774 and 1791, the Papineau and Mackenzie agitations and the rebellion of 1837 are discussed briefly but thoroughly. The reader is thus saved the necessity of plodding through the ponderous tomes of Kingsford to get in touch with the historical situation.

The disturbances of 1837 were restricted to Upper Canada, where there was a large American element, and to Lower Canada, where the French predominated. There was also considerable dissatisfaction in

L'Utilité sociale de la propriété individuelle. By ADOLPHE LANDRY. Paris, Société nouvelle de libraire et d'édition, 1901. — xii, 511 pp.

This book is intended as an argument for socialism. It does not, however, pretend to completeness, but is concerned primarily with an analysis of the conflicts between private and public interests, which the author conceives to be inherent in the very nature of individual property. No attempt is made to present a like analysis of the difficulties inherent in socialism, or to strike a balance between the relative merits of socialism and of individual property as working systems.

The book is divided into two parts, one dealing with production and the other with distribution. In the first part are discussed the curtailment of production with a view to securing larger money returns through increased prices; the conflict between gross and net product; the tendency to overproduction, or rather the uneconomical distribution of the factors of production among different industries; waste; and the tendency to sacrifice the future to the present. This part of the book conIcludes with a discussion of the problem of maximum productivity. The second part is divided into two sections, one treating of inequality of incomes in relation to general well-being; the other, of the best system of wealth distribution.

The chief value of the work lies in the detail, sometimes, it must be confessed, wearisome and far-fetched, with which the character and extent of the various forms of conflict between public and private interests are analyzed. Nowhere else, in the knowledge of the reviewer, will an equally detailed and systematic discussion be found. It must be said, however, that, except in the first division of the first part, devoted to the curtailment of production in the interest of higher prices and constituting the most valuable portion of the book, there is a crudeness in the conception of the facts of economic life, and a tendency to the exaggeration of partial truths, which go far to impair the value of the work. These faults can be traced in part at least to an evident lack of economic training, shown most clearly in the failure to understand so familiar a principle as Ricardo's theory of international trade (pp. 416, 417). Thus, in the section devoted to the consideration of gross and net product, the author seems to hold that the value of land and capital is determined by their productivity; hence, if it is necessary on account of the high value of these factors to economize their use in a certain industry, that fact itself is proof that their value in some other industry is greater than in the industry in question; and the economy is bene