then it will take a good long time, and which my opponent blundered, watch many repetitions of various caddies' adverse opinions of his arithmetical powers to throw anything like a serious doubt upon his honor. And yet what club is there which does not possess one or two members of whom it is sotto voce said that if you play with them you will have to look pretty sharply after their score? It is the commonly accepted belief that the vast majority of golf players belong to a class which is incapable of cheating at all events out of business hours. I am sorry to have to express the deliberate conviction that the belief in the honor and honesty of golfers has very unsubstantial foundation in fact. I have golfed for a number of years over all kinds of greens, and with all sorts of people; and on innumerable occasions I have been driven to strongly suspect my opponent of cheating, and on many оссаsions I have positively detected him in so doing. In a match, as every golfer knows, the two players are often pretty widely separated. Under such circumstances it is obvious that various minor acts of cheating are comparatively easy. If a player discovers his ball in a rather bad lie, he can, in the act of addressing, alter its position, and thus give himself a good lie. Such a thing as missing the ball altogether is not unknown even with fairly experienced players; and I have known many instances when I have not been obviously looking, but have only detected out of the corner of my eye that my opponent has had a mishap of this kind-that the coup dans l'air has not been counted unless I have drawn attention to it when on the green. Of course this miscounting of strokes is much easier when the fortunes of the game carry the two players on different sides of a hedge or other defence from observation. I remember on one occasion, having satisfactorily negotiated a somewhat high bunker into ing his head and shoulders-the only part of him visible-from the other side. He made several strokes, and at last jerked the ball over. I thought it had taken four to get out, but he declared that the three first strokes were only practice ones at the sand. I, of course, could not contradict this, and, being of a placable temperament, refrained from pointing out that it was scarcely etiquette to practise strokes when practically out of sight in a bunker. so. Apart from instances of this sort, nothing is easier than to intentionally forget a stroke when counting up after holing out on the green. As a matter of fact, unless one steadily counts as one goes along, it is quite easy to genuirely make a mistake, and it is to this fact that the habitual cheater trusts should at any time his miscount be detected. And if, being somewhat doubtful of the accuracy of his computation, you endeavor to recall his individual strokes, he will very likely tell you that it is not etiquette to do No doubt he is right in a certain sense, for it is the honorable custom of good golfers to entirely trust each other in the matter of counting strokes. But if one's suspicions are aroused as to the untrustworthiness of the memory of your opponent (to put it politely), it is impossible to avoid keeping an eye on him and counting his strokes; and when your total does not tally with his it seems only right to point out the fact. As a matter of fact, the true scoring etiquette of golf enjoins the frequent mutual reference by the two players to their several scores. Most players ought to be approaching the putting green, and consequently pretty near together, at their third stroke; and by that time a pleasant colloquy of "You've played the odd," or "Shall I play the like?" should be easily practicable, and always is desirable. Cornhill Magazine, IV. THE BLUE JAR. By H. Garton Sargent, Blackwood's Magazine, VIII. RUSSIA ON THE BOSPHORUS. By Capt. IX. HERR RICHTER'S GREAT SPEECH, COLUMBUS AT SEVILLE, POETRY. Macmillan's Magazine, . Fortnightly Review, 691 705 717 690 NOT IN TEMPLES MADE WITH HANDS, 690 690 SUPPLEMENT. EPITHALAMIUM, PUBLISHED EVERY SATURDAY BY THE LIVING AGE COMPANY, BOSTON. Of a ship 'would sail up-hill?" "Had I Here ends all art, all artificers end: not heard move Compassionate, and took defeat, went forth. Further than I have travelled she hath fared: The double bow, which heralds sunny weather, The shining halo of the rising day, Th' equator smooth, which binds the world together, The chaplet fair, that rounds the brow of May, A diadem by meanest mortals owned, Who rightly wears thee, sits a king enthroned. Let but a slender finger swift pass thro' thee, And all delights shall follow in its train. Hold fast by this, and woe may not undo thee, That brave ring-armor blunts the edge of pain. Genties, but harken to the minstrel's voice, And ye' shall ne'er repent, but aye rejoice. C. E. D. PHELPS. NOT IN TEMPLES MADE WITH HANDS. But I shall follow. Soon will come the God dwells not only where, o'er saintly dust, The sweet bells greet the fairest morn of seven; Wherever simple folk love, pray, and trust, Behold the House of God, the gate of heaven! FREDERICK LANGBRIDGE. From The Contemporary Review. A COMMON CITIZENSHIP FOR THE ENGLISH RACE. My aim is to establish the possibility and advocate the policy of instituting a common citizenship for all English men and Americans. My proposal is summarily this: That England and the United States should, by concurrent and appropriate legislation, create such a common citizenship, or, to put the matter in a more concrete and therefore in a more intelligible form, that an act of the Imperial Parliament should make every citizen of the United States, during the continuance of peace between England and America, a British subject, and that simultaneously an act of Congress should make every British subject, during the continuance of such peace, a citizen of the United States. The coming into force of the one act would be made dependent upon the passing and coming into force of the other. Should war at any time break out between the two countries, each act would ipso facto cease to have effect. This is in substance my proposition. It is purposely expressed in the broadest and most general terms. Qualifications and limitations, which must of necessity be inserted in any actual act of Parliament, or of Congress, constituting such common citizenship, or, to employ a useful but pedantic term, "isopolity," are for the sake of clearness omitted. With provisos and exceptions my readers need not for the moment concern themselves. They should, however, note one preliminary observation, the overlooking whereof might lead to misapprehension of my whole plan. Common citizenship, or isopolity, has no necessary connection whatever with national or political unity. My proposal is not designed to limit the complete national independence either of England or of the United States. It would be not only an absurdity, but almost an act of lunacy, to devise or defend a scheme for turning England and America into one State. It is as impossible, as, were it possible, it would be undesirable, that Washington should be ruled by a government in London, or that London should be ruled by a government in Washington. My plan, so far from contemplating the political unity of England and America, does not in no sense be partners in a war, e.g., day that Beust passed from the service The idea of a common citizenship for the whole English people is novel. My proposal, therefore, must of necessity sound startling. My purpose is to establish, first, that my plan is practicable; secondly, that the immediate effects of common citizenship would be extremely small, but, as far as they went, wholly good; thirdly, that the indirect and moral, and, ultimately, the political results of common citizenship might be great and extremely beneficial; and, lastly, that the time is opportune for aiming at, or at any rate contemplating, the extension of common civil and political rights throughout the whole of the English-speaking people. First, the plan is practicable. My scheme is technically, so to speak, feasible. As far as England is concerned, it could be carried into effect at any moment by an act, and that a short act, of Parliament. As far as the United States are concerned, it might be carried into effect by an act of Congress. There would, for the foundation of a common citizenship, be no need for any revolution even of a legal kind in the Constitution either of England or of the United States. No doubt, as already intimated, the necessary legislation on the part either of the Imperial Parliament or of Congress would involve the consideration of several provisos or limitations, each of which might raise difficult and debatable questions. Thus, for example, with a view to the peculiar status of American Indians, who are inhabitants, but are not citizens, of the United States, care would have to be taken that the enactment of common citizenship did not confer on Canadian Indians, who are British subjects, greater rights, when passing into the United States, than are possessed there by American Indians. It would, again, need to be considered how far, if at all, the extension of civil and political rights should involve the extension of criminal liability. But these and other matters of detail, however important in themselves, do not, for our present purpose, require careful consideration; they constitute just the kind of objections which naturally enough are taken hold of and exaggerated by opponents who deprecate the very attempt to unite more closely the two branches of the English people. But they are objec 1 Or by such other legislation, if any, as the Constitution of the United States may require. An act of Congress would, however, apparently be sufficient. (See "Constitution of the United States," art. i. s. 8, clause 3, and "Kent, Comm." ii., pp. 64-66.) But a treaty which should provide for the passing of the necessary acts would prac tically be a necessity. tions which will never weigh for much with those who eagerly embrace or cordially acquiesce in the idea of isopolity. The plan proposed is then technically feasible; its real practicability depends on the existence of a widespread feeling in its favor on both sides the Atlantic. Unless a desire for a closer union exist, any attempt to establish a common citizenship must, on the very face of the matter, be futile, not to say absurd. Throughout this article I assume that the desire for some sort of unity does exist, and my contention is that, given such a wish, there is no legal difficulty in giving effect to it. If the objection be made, as it possibly may be made with truth, that a strong wish for common citizenship has not yet arisen, my reply is simple. Neither men nor nations desire an end until it has been definitely set before them as an object of attainment. One main reason for propounding my scheme is to create or stimulate the desire for common citizenship. Thus much is certain: if the desire exist there is no legal difficulty in giving it satisfaction. Secondly: The immediate and practical effects of common citizenship would be small. My proposal sounds revolutionary, but in truth the most plausible objection to it is that its results would be practically insignificant. As things now stand a foreigner when in England loses but little in point of civil rights, from the fact that he is not a British subject. Aliens, it is true, were at one time excluded as such from a certain number of civil rights; they could not. for example, inherit land, but, at any rate, since 1870 an alien belonging to a country such as France, which is at peace with Great Britain, has possessed, certainly in the United Kingdom, and probably in every part of the British Empire, if not all yet nearly ali, the civil rights of a British subject. He can own land in England, he can trade in England, he enjoys in England as much personal liberty and as much freedom of speech or of writing as an ordinary Englishman. There is no power on the part of the govern |