claim, in the expenses of the French and Indian wars, some warrant for their taxation of the protected colonists. Perhaps the greatest omissions of all have been the failure to emphasize the fact that the oppression of the colonies which led to the Revolution was the work of the king and one political party, and not that of the great people of England, and the failure to point out that the colonists themselves were by no means united in their struggle against the king and the Tories. I want, however, to emphasize the fact that in the very large number of school histories that I have examined I have not found anything that looks like intentional misrepresentation or deliberate and willful misstatement made with a view to stir up and keep alive hatred of the British. The language that was found in the old sources from which the histories were first written, full of the passion and bitterness of the moment, naturally found its way into these earlier books, but (I quote again the Report of the New England History Association) "under the influence of deeper study and a keener sense of justice, the element of bitterness which so often entered into the discussion of the Revolution has largely disappeared, and while its treatment in the text-books still leaves much to be desired, it is now seldom dogmatic and unsympathetic.' Just to show how that great and most important event in American history is receding into a new perspective, I may point out how the space devoted to it in the history books has been gradually reduced: Grimshaw, 1822, devotes one-third of his space to the Revolution; Russell, 1837, one-third; Goodrich, edition used, published about 1881, one-fifth; Guernsey, 1849, one-third; Lossing, 1860, one-third; Holmes, 1870, onefifth; Swinton, 1871, one-sixth; Barnes, 1871, 1885, etc., one-seventh; Stephens, 1875, one-seventh; Johnson, 1885, oneninth; Montgomery, 1890, one-eighth; Shinn, 1895, oneseventh; Lee, 1895, one-seventh; Cooper, Estill, and Lemmon, 1895, one-eighth; Thomas, 1893, one-eighth. These figures are most suggestive. The Civil War not only placed the Revolution in an entirely new and different focus, but the desire to see both sides of the question, and to write the history of the later struggle without wounding susceptibilities or keeping alive bad feelings has doubtless infused a greater spirit of fairness when treating of the farther off event. The desire for fairness to the South begat the need of fairness to all, and, of course, when the new history books are written which shall include the story of the Spanish war and the subjugation of the Philippines, both the Civil War and the wars against England will have to be viewed in a different perspective again. Many persons remember a visit paid to this country some three or four years ago by the late Samuel Plimsoll, M. P., whose name will forever be held in grateful remembrance by British sailors-and whose famous load line will, it is hoped, never disappear from British vessels. "The sailors' friend," as the fighter of the Coffin Ship interest was called, visited this country in 1896, and he described his mission as follows: I have come to this country to see if I cannot find the cause of the unjust dislike the Americans have for the mother country. That feeling is so uncalled for that there must be some cause for it-fancied cause, I think. We in England have no such feeling toward America. We have only sympathy and admiration for her. It seems strange to me that you should allow the ill feeling caused by a war of 120 years ago still to exist. You must remember that nine-tenths of the English people were opposed to the war at the time, and that the remaining one-tenth, the governing class, was divided within itself on the subject. Why let the acts of a daft old king, who was in retirement for insanity two or three times, cause an everlasting animosity toward the England of to-day, which has no more to do with that time than the United States of to-day has? I believe the prejudice starts with the children and is taught to them from school histories that misstate facts; and in these histories I think the remedy lies. I have gathered together all the histories that are used in the board schools of England. There are thirty-four of them. I examined them carefully, and I did not find the slightest unkind allusion to the United States in one. And so I have come to this country to examine the school histories used here. I have been told, and believe, that most of them are unfair; that they foster a wrong feeling toward the mother country. I hope to live long enough to bring this to the attention of thinking men, so that a reform can be begun. If we begin with the children, I think the rest will work out itself. I have given some idea of what Mr. Plimsoll might have found in the American schoolbooks, and were it not for the fear of wearying the reader I would like to contrast the language in these old American books with that in the English histories. But most persons know the tone always adopted in English school histories when dealing with the American Rev olution, and if anyone wishes to refresh his memory he can get from the United States Bureau of Education a pamphlet containing the collection of extracts which Mr. Plimsoll brought together. Of this collection Mr. Edwin D. Mead, than whom no one in this country has done more to promote good feeling between England and America, says: Such is the teaching given to the boys and girls of England with reference to the American Revolution. Everywhere the King and government of England are made to shoulder the blame, and the American colonists are held up to admiration as the champions of law and liberty and the rights of mankind. “Had we then had a House of Commons elected by the people, as we have now,"--this word of one would be adopted by all,— "most likely the war with America would never have taken place." • If the counsel of some of the wisest statesmen in England had been followed, there is no doubt that a compromise would have been effected and peace maintained. But the King would not hear of making any concession. He regarded the colonists as rebels who must be forced into obedience." “England was fighting for a bad cause, and freedom and good government came from her defeat." To true fraternity and friendship there is nothing more important than a true treatment and understanding of the history of the nations in their relations to each other. It is fundamentally important that this history should be taught aright to the boys and girls, for they are to be the men and women, the sovereigns, to-morrow. May we not learn. from these English schoolbooks lessons in fairness, in frankness, in temperance and breadth, in good humor, and in noble spirit? Some people have said it is easier for the English boys to read forgivingly of the resentment and rebellion of the colonists provoked by English injustice than it is for American boys to read without symptoms of sympathetic resentment of the injustice that provoked them. But that shows understanding neither of the circumstances of the case nor the attitude of mind of the British people. Every British boy sympathizes with America in that struggle, for every British boy knows that America was fighting for exactly what his own people were fighting then, and had been fighting for centuries. When the English boy reads Patrick Henry's splendid warning to George III. he experiences just as sympathetic a thrill as any American boy, and his heart goes out as warmly to the boys who bearded General Gage as does that of any boy of Boston; and I verily believe that, while most of us rejoice that England could conquer France and Spain and Holland, we have, if we read history aright, a secret satisfaction in knowing that she could not subdue her own rebellious sons who had risen up against kingly oppression and whose courage and love of freedom were as strong as their own. Not all American history books have failed to present the case of the Revolution fairly. I find in one book, copyrighted in 1874 and written by Samuel Eliot, that In the story of the provocation dividing the mother country and the colonies we have not England, not Great Britain pitted against America, but the ruling classes in the mother country opposed to the better class in our colonies. The distinction is important; nothing else could explain the amount of blundering on one side or the amount of wisdom, comparatively speaking, on the other. Nor could anything else so clearly indicate the difference between the principles at stake: the principles of an old aristocracy on the one hand, and on the other those of a young commonwealth all fervent with vigor and with hope. Farther on in the book the writer tells the American boy that, when peace was declared, from all parts of Great Britain itself there came congratulations and applause. But such a treatment of the matter was the exception twentyfive years ago. Probably the publication, in 1891, of Mrs. Sheldon Barnes's Studies in American history has had as much effect as any single book in teaching the teachers that the English people never fought against America; that the Revolution. was a revolt against monarchs and tyrants, was a fight for a principle, such as Englishmen at home were struggling for at almost the same time—a principle of liberty and freedom. In this admirable pioneer book, the student is shown both sides of many historical episodes by extracts from contemporary documents, and it has been a revelation to many to learn from the extract from the London Gazette, which Mrs. Barnes gives in this book, that when the news that the royal assent had been given to the Repeal of the Stamp Act was made public, "there were the greatest rejoicings possible in the city of London by all ranks of the people. The ships in the river displayed all their colors and there were bonfires and illuminations in many parts." As another instance of English sympathy with American resistance to tyranny, I may mention the trial for libel of John P. Zenger, a New York printer. It was perhaps the first attempt at the restricting of the freedom of the press made in this country. Zenger was acquitted, and the speech for the defense by lawyer Andrew Hamilton of Philadelphia, with all the details of the trial, was several times reprinted in England, where the result was hailed with joy, for the people were at that time rebelling against the muzzling of the press in the mother country. It was Mrs. Sheldon Barnes's book, too, which brought to the notice of our history teachers the fact, hitherto almost always ignored in the text-books, that there was a very large and important section of the American people who sang: Tho fated to Poverty, Banishment, Death, Our hearts are unaltered and with our last breath These Tories, representing no inconsiderable portion of the wealth and intelligence of the country, were strongly opposed to the Revolutionists, and aided the British in every way possible. For this they suffered all manner of persecution and privation, and they displayed no small heroism in the cause. So that even the Revolution was not the unanimous, spontaneous movement that the usual school text-book would have the children believe. The part the Tories took at the time of the Revolution is deserving of attention if we are to present the historic truth, and the desire to present both sides, this spirit of fairness, this abandoning of rancorous epithet is the keynote of the newest books,—and a broader spirit yet must permeate those of the immediate future. As an instance of the new spirit in which the study of history is being approached by modern thinkers, I should like to call attention to an article by Professor Edwin Erle Sparks of Chicago University, on "The sentimental in American history," which is an earnest plea for the truth in dealing with characters who have figured in the making of the nation. He asks that the honest and trustworthy portrait be given "warts and all," even tho the picture be not beautiful and shows that some instances of what has been called disinterested patriotism, |