armies executed the behests of those who planned this policy. They went for gold or they went for slaves or for trade or for glory or for extension of territory, and they knew what they were doing and meant to do it.

r—

Now, in comparatively modern times a change took place in the attitude of the dominant nations towards these acts of aggression. They came to consider that it was more respectable to put a certain gloss upon their motives. This was not an invention of the present age. You find it in the Spanish Imperialism of centuries ago, when that most Christian nation set out to Christianize the lower nations, taking from them all the treasures they might happen to possess. But we get the full-blown inconsistency in recent times. Imperialistic nations now—nations who wish to fasten dominion upon weaker people, or to hold down territories which contain upon them true nationalities unable to sustain themselves against the forces of dominant powersuch people allege—and, mind you, allege with what appears to them very often to be the truth-other motives than those which are actually driving them along their line of conduct. They say, and their spokesmen often think, that what they are really concerned with primarily, if not entirely, is the good order of civilization. They find certain peoples in a disturbed condition upon their frontiers, they find certain rulers of nefarious character and of destructive habits, they find a Prempeh, a Theebaw, a Mahdi, or a Mullah, whom they term mad, they find, or try to find, some evil person of this character who is representative of a degraded and injurious civilization upon their frontiers, and they go into the country with force in order that they may restore good order for the benefit of the people of that country and of the civilized world. Sometimes conjoined with or substituted for this motive is another. The resources of certain parts of the world are developing; it is desirable from the standpoint of the interests of the wealth of the world that whatever natural resources there may be in any part of the world, although these resources may be under the nominal dominion of another people, it is desirable that they should be developed, and if the people are so backward and so ignorant or so obstinate that they refuse to develop them, then it is the business, even the duty, of the nearest powerful neighbor to step in and undertake to teach them how to do the duty they neglected. Along with that there is another plea, doubtless urged with perfect genuineness by most of those who use it: a desire to spread the general moral good of civilization among the backward people of the earth-that the nation which is advanced in civilization shall reach out a helping hand to elevate the lower peoples and to teach them western science, western morals, and western manners, and lead them along the path to true self-government. These are the professions; and I want to say this to you, that I think they are professions genuinely held by many people who maintain them.

Now, you see, you have these professions graded in three forms. The widest profession purports that the control of the subject races is undertaken on behalf of the good of the civilized world; secondly, that it is undertaken on behalf of the good of the subject people; and, thirdly, that some incidental gain and advantage may come to the people who undertake this pious duty. Now I need not argue to you what the practice is; I have stated the theory or the professions; these three motives may all be present in the actual relations of a dominant over a subject race; but they are present in a different order and in a different proportion from that which is contained

in the professions- the third of these motives is substituted for the first and the second and certainly takes a prior importance in the play of history. So far as we are able faithfully to interpret the course of Imperialism, in modern times we can find several not wholly distinct, but still fairly separate, motives at work. The first is that which was a dominant motive in all times when people sought empire, the desire to exploit in some shape or other the backward or inferior race. That exploitation takes a different shape in modern times. We do not find it good for ourselves or for anybody crudely to draw masses of wealth in the shape of taxation from that subject race. We find it better generally to put ourselves upon a basis of sound trading policy with these people, and to take our gains from the forms of international exchange. Still more important, we plant upon these nations and their territories the spare capital which more and more seeks investment out of our own country; and, from my standpoint, this is the most powerful single motive making for the modern policy of Imperialism - the desire to extend the effective and profitable area of investment by getting hold of and developing the territories which belong to other people, and using the labor power of those lower people to assist us in grinding out dividends and profits for those investments. Along with that we find the more subtle desire of politicians and important people in general for territorial and political aggrandizement for themselves, for their class, and for their own native country. This is the way in which socalled patriotism comes in as a motive to Imperial aggression. There is a third motive, however, which I would distinguish, and that is the desire, the increasing desire in modern times, to find effective, lucrative, and interesting careers for the men who want to go out of their own country, for the benefit of their country, or for the benefit of themselves, and carve out careers in distant countries. This, I say, is not entirely a new motive. James Mill, I think, it was who described the British Colonial system of his time as 'a gigantic system of out-relief for the sons of the wealthy classes.'

Of the many forcible pleas made to the conference for justice to the subject races, the most striking was by Lala Lajpat Rai, a distinguished member of the bar of India - the most striking because of the terrible picture it presents of the conditions now existing in India, after a period of one hundred and fifty years under the dominance of the overlord nation, which is generally recognized as the most humane and liberal of all in its treatment of subject races. It was the general impression that when the liberal party gained parliamentary control in England, and undertook, in 1908, under the guidance of Lord Morley, to revise and reform the government of India, it would succeed in working out a scheme under which many of the grievances of the natives would be remedied, and the chronic unrest, which had so long disturbed the administration of India, would disappear. This native lawyer gave a recital of events under the existing law, which justifies the statement that the last condition of India is even worse than that which preceded it. Much was hoped for from the addition of a native Indian to the three

Executive Councils of Bengal, Bombay, and Madras; but the appointments made were not of a character to in any way change or mitigate the situation; and Lord Morley's scheme for democratizing the provincial councils, as it finally worked out and is revealed in actual operation, is denounced as the most mischievous that could be conceived in the present state of Indian politics. The finances, the military and education all remain wholly outside the scope of the provincial councils. The Indian press, both vernacular and Anglo-vernacular, finds itself under a system of surveillance and arbitrary suppression never previously known. The right to hold public meetings for the discussion of political grievances is withdrawn. Condign and brutal punishment for political offenses is common. So also is trial without jury in high courts, without the right to appear by counsel. A wide and disciplinary system of house-searching exists. Free primary education is denied. A condition of bitter hostility has been generated between the landed interests and the educated classes. The entire police system has become inefficient and utterly corrupt. The last, but not the least, of the native grievances is, "that the system of government in India is sapping our manhood, driving virtue out of the land, and making patriotism and public spirit a crime." Here is a terrible picture of the failure of England in India; and the reader of the news reports from that country, which appear in the British press, cannot resist the conviction that in its essential features the indictment is true. No less sad and discouraging are the accounts of the local situation presented to the London Conference from Finland, Egypt, Morocco, Georgia, and other subject countries; and a perusal of this volume almost leads one to the conclusion that John Stuart Mill was right in his famous dictum: "Such a thing as the government of one people by another cannot and does not exist. One people may keep another as a warren or preserve, for its own use, a place to make money in, a human farm to be worked for the profit of its own inhabitants." At least the members of this conference believed it to be true; and we conclude our notice of this interesting volume by quoting the resolution it unanimously adopted at its close:

That the preservation and revival of national liberties and characteristics make for the enrichment of civilization; that the claim of any subject people of distinct nationality to the management of its own affairs should be recognized by the dominant power; and an International Tribunal should be established to take cognizance of violation of all treaties, conventions, and agreements, between great Powers and small or subject nationalities.

S. N. D. NORTH.

Handbook of International Law (Hornbook Series). By George Grafton Wilson. St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing Company. 1910. pp. xxiii, 623.

The author of this handbook has long been known to students of international law as one of the authors of Wilson and Tucker's International Law, a text-book which has gone through several editions. The present volume resembles in general arrangement and style the last edition of Wilson and Tucker, though the introductory matter on the nature and historical development of international law has been largely omitted and other chapters expanded. Wilson's classification and arrangement are clear, logical, and on the whole admirable.

The rapid development of international law since the meeting of the First Hague Conference in 1899 has rendered large parts of existing text-books obsolete. The present volume embodies fully the results of recent conventional changes and is in all respects fully abreast of the times. It contains copious extracts from the Hague Conventions of 1907, the Declaration of London of 1909, and other recent international agreements, the full texts of which are given in the appendices. The reader may be inclined at first sight to criticise the adoption in the text of so many provisions from recent conventions, the status of which is still a matter of uncertainty, but a closer examination will show that Professor Wilson has put in the text only those provisions on which a large number of Powers are agreed. Still the status of the conventions given in the appendices is nowhere defined and the student may sometimes question how far some of the provisions quoted in the text are binding. General treaties and conventions constitute at present the most active source of international law, but very few of these international agreements have been signed by all of the Powers. The student therefore is naturally perplexed to know what is and what is not international law. The only light the author throws on this subject is the statement (p. 11) that, "Where a considerable number of states are parties to an agreement, as to the Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, signed at The Hague, October 18, 1907, such a convention becomes in effect international law for the signatory states." It must be confessed that this is rather an unsatisfactory basis on which to rest a system of law. And yet the author has discarded almost entirely the ethical and historical bases on which the older treatises were founded and has undertaken to base his work on concrete

statements of existing rules derived largely from recent treaties and conventions. It should be said, however, that these shortcomings are due to the changing condition of international law rather than to the method employed by the author. It may well be doubted whether the time is ripe for a new treatise. While the present volume does not rise to the dignity of a treatise in the older sense, it is clear, concise, logical, and accurate. It was designed as a practical text-book for law students, and as such it is excellent. I know of no other book which puts before the student in such concrete form the existing rules of international law. JOHN HOLLADAY LATANÉ.

The Turco-Italian War and its Problems. With Appendices containing the chief state papers bearing on the subject. By Sir Thomas Barclay. With an additional chapter on Moslem feeling by the Rt. Hon. Aymeer Ali, P. C. London: Constable and Company, Ltd. 1912. pp. xiii, 259.

Italy declared war against Turkey on September 29, 1911, and within two months thereafter this capital little book of Sir Thomas was in press. The preface is dated December, 1911. This means, of course, that the monograph includes nothing of a later date. This is not, however, a drawback, as the purpose of the study is to examine the conduct of Italy in the light of past policy, and of the official correspondence that passed between Italy and Turkey in the month of September. If hitherto unknown documents may put a better face on Italy's action, for the present we are justified in relying upon the Italian ultimatum of September 26, 1911, the Italian declaration of war of the 29th, and the Turkish reply of the 29th to the ultimatum of the 26th, for the official reasons of the war, and in a lesser degree we may take into consideration the semi-official Italian and Turkish statements of their respective cases which appeared in the London Times the day following the declaration of war on the 29th. These various documents are printed in chronological order (pp. 109-113) in the first appendix, and place the reader in possession of such facts as the two governments have been minded to lay before the public.

In the ultimatum, Italy asserts that "the state of disorder and neglect in which Tripoli and Cyrenaica are left by Turkey should come to an end, and that these regions should be allowed to enjoy the same progress as that attained by other ports of Northern Africa," that this transformation is, "so far as Italy is concerned, a vital interest of the very first