Germany lost a great part of its trade. The rich South German merchants consequently sought other fields in which to employ their capital. They lent money to foreign princes, and suffered irreparable losses through the Spanish and French bankruptcies of the day. The trade of North Germany, too, had been fostered by the Hanseatic League, and naturally suffered with the decline of the League's power. The subject of Dr. Ehrenberg's monograph is the extension of English commerce through the settlement of the merchant adventurers in Hamburg.

As a result of the quarrels of the merchant adventurers with Antwerp and of the religious troubles in that city, the woolen staple was removed from Antwerp, first to Emden and finally in 1567-69 to Hamburg. This city granted extraordinary privileges to the merchant adventurers, of which Ehrenberg gives full details, with the Latin text of a presumably accurate copy of the original agreement. This action of Hamburg called forth vigorous protests from the Hanse, and especially from Lübeck. This was natural; for the national economic policy of the Tudors, strongly influenced by Sir Thomas Gresham, opposed the special privileges that the Hanseatic merchants enjoyed in England, and in 1553 had even caused their suspension. Through Hamburg as a gateway, English trade extended far into Germany. Instead of exporting wool, England was now even forced to draw upon the raw materials of other countries for its rapidly increasing woolen exports. As Ehrenberg says, the pitiful decline of German industry was unquestionably much accelerated by the concessions to the English merchants.

The merchant adventurers were unable to protect their monopoly against "interlopers," who shipped cloth to other places than Hamburg, even to Antwerp; and the opposition of the Hanse to the English settlement in Hamburg still continued, for the privileges of the Steelyard were being diminished. Accordingly, at the end of the ten-years' agreement Hamburg, despite the gain to the city treasury, refused to renew the agreement unless the privileges of the Hanse in England were restored. The English government adopted reprisals against the now powerless Hanseatic League, which relied upon its past strength to coerce England. The Hanseatic trade was ruined. because, owing to the lack of any German national policy, English merchants were able to ship their goods to places in Germany not belonging to the League. Finally, to the great annoyance of the Hanse, Hamburg tacitly renewed the privileges of the English merchants. Yet in spite of concessions on the part of England, Ham

burg, because of the opposition of the Hanse and of the pro-Spanish emperor, and because of its sympathy with Spain in her contest with the Netherlands and England, refused a formal renewal of the agreement. Before Hamburg would decide definitely, the outcome of the Armada, which it, as well as Spain, believed to be invincible, had to be awaited. The merchant adventurers consequently abandoned Hamburg, and made Stade, a small town on the Elbe, their staple. When the Armada had failed, Hamburg saw its grievous error and sought to retrieve it by driving the English, through an imperial edict, out of Stade. Then followed a very complex period in the history of the merchant adventurers, for economic and political motives were intricately combined. In England began the opposition to the merchant adventurers, owing to the rise of the antimonopolistic party. On the German side the emperor, by embarrassing English trade, sought to aid Spain. In this the Hanse supported him. Ehrenberg has not adequately elucidated this period, because he did not search the Vienna archives. He refrained from so doing because, as he says, the political aspect of the subject is to him a side issue. The final result of this conflict of interests was that in 1611 Hamburg humbly welcomed the merchant adventurers back on their own terms.

Dr. Ehrenberg does not aim to treat his subject exhaustively, but to pave the way for other investigators. In preparing his monograph he made use of the archives of Hamburg, Lübeck, Bremen and other cities, as well as of the English sources. Access to the archives of the merchant adventurers, which are probably preserved in Mercers Hall, was refused to him, as it had been to Schanz. As regards Ehrenberg's use of his authorities, it may be said that Holbaum's criticism, that he gives too much credence to English authorities at the expense of the German, seems well founded. While not satisfactory on all points, Ehrenberg's treatment of his interesting subject is broad and judicious. It will be of especial value to students of English history, and it incidentally goes to disprove the common contention that historical evolution is dependent on economic conditions. In the case at hand the very opposite seems true.

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY.

GEORGE LOUIS BEER.

RECORD OF POLITICAL EVENTS.

[From May 11 to November 11, 1896.]

I. THE UNITED STATES.

FOREIGN RELATIONS. —A settlement of the difference with Great Britain on the Venezuelan boundary question was announced just at the close of the period under review. During the summer the commission appointed by Mr. Cleveland to ascertain the true divisional line prosecuted researches in various European archives, and subjected to analysis the elaborate "cases" presented by the British and the Venezuelan governments. The commission resumed its regular sessions at Washington, October 10, but suspended work on its report when the settlement by negotiation was reached in November. An eagerness on the part of both Great Britain and the United States to preserve the status quo seemed to be indicated by the fact that, when the Venezuelans seized an English surveyor in the disputed region in June (see below, p. 787), the good offices of the United States were asked and promptly given in securing the release of the prisoner. On July 17 was made public the correspondence between the two governments in the negotiations that had been resumed in the spring. The tone and spirit of these later dispatches were far less acrimonious than in the communications published last December. In May Lord Salisbury reiterated his objections to submitting the allegiance of British subjects to the decision of a foreign arbiter, and proposed a commission of four members, two British and two citizens of the United States, who should report upon the facts in regard to the rights of Spain and Holland at the date when Great Britain acquired British Guiana. On the basis of this report he proposed that Great Britain and Venezuela should try to agree on a boundary, failing which the line should be fixed by arbitration, with the proviso that regions occupied by the subjects of either government on or before January 1, 1887, should be left to those governments respectively. Mr. Olney's counterproposition suggested, as a substitute for this proviso, the following: That, in fixing such line, if territory of one party be found in the occupation of the subjects or citizens of the other party, such weight and effect be given to such occupation as reason, justice, the rules of international law and the equities of the particular case may appear to require." This suggestion was at once recognized by Great Britain as opening the way to an agreement, but considerable discussion followed looking to a more definite rule as to the determination of the "settled districts." It was finally agreed that occupation for fifty years should be regarded as giving

title by prescription, and that, subject to this rule, all the territory in dispute should be put in arbitration. On November 9 Lord Salisbury declared in his speech at the Lord Mayor's banquet that the controversy was at an end, and this was confirmed by unofficial statements at Washington. Precise information as to the form of the agreement was withheld, however, pending the determination of minor details. Parallel with the negotiations in reference to Venezuela the discussion of a general treaty of arbitration was carried on between London and Washington, and correspondence on this point also was made public on July 17. From this it appeared that Lord Salisbury submitted a project embodying the heads of a treaty which provided for a permanent tribunal to decide differences between the two powers. In certain specified classes of disputes the award of the tribunal was to be final; in those touching territorial rights, sovereignty or jurisdiction, or pecuniary claims of over £100,000, an appeal was allowed to a court consisting of three supreme-court judges of each country; but any difference which either power considered to affect its honor or the integrity of its territory was to be referred to the tribunal only by special agreement. Secretary Olney's reply proposed a modification of this scheme so as to insure that all classes of disputes should fall prima facie within the jurisdiction of the tribunal, while leaving to Congress and Parliament the power by special declaration to withdraw a case as involving national honor or territorial integrity. He also proposed important modifications of the method of review established for the more important cases. No agreement was reached on the points of difference up to the end of the published correspondence. — The treaty for the appointment of a joint commission to adjudicate the claims of Canadian sealers under the Bering Sea arbitration award was concluded by the exchange of ratifications, June 3. In case of failure of the commissioners to agree, the president of the Swiss Republic is to appoint an umpire. Both Great Britain and the United States have been investigating through experts the alleged inadequacy of the rules prescribed by the Paris tribunal for the preservation of the seal herds. It is reported that Russia and Japan have signified a desire to coöperate in more severe restrictions upon pelagic seal-hunting. The filibustering expeditions in aid of the Cuban insurgents have continued, though many arrests of men and seizures of vessels have been made by the authorities. On July 30 President Cleveland issued a further proclamation of neutrality, explaining in some detail the force and construction of our laws and again warning all persons against their violation. Much irritation had been manifested in Spain at the failure of our government to prevent aid from going to the insurgents, and it was rumored in July that the Spanish foreign office had prepared a circular note to the European powers complaining of the delinquency of the United States. According to the report, it was only the opportune proclamation of the president that prevented the dispatch of the circular note. In October the administration was officially informed that the Spanish supreme court

had upheld the American contention as to the Competitor prisoners (see last RECORD), and that the proceedings of the court-martial had been annulled.

INTERNAL ADMINISTRATION. — Questions of finance and currency have alone assumed importance in this field. The maintenance of the gold reserve has again been effected, as a year earlier (cf. RECORD for December, 1895, p. 739), through the aid of private financiers, though this time the assistance was not due to any contract with the government. By June 17 the final payments under the bond issue of last February had been made, but though the proceeds of the bonds had been $111,000,000, the treasury's reserve stood at only $103,200,194. It was estimated that of the gold paid into the treasury for the bonds, fully forty millions had been taken out of the treasury for the purpose. Withdrawals for export during May and June were heavy; withdrawals for hoarding resulted from the alarm created by the silver movement in politics; and on July 11 the reserve fell below the hundred-million mark. Ten days later it was only $90,000,000, and the outlook was so gloomy that leading New York bankers organized a movement to turn into the treasury from their own reserves enough gold to sustain the supply until the movement of our crops should end the exportation of the metal. Accordingly, during the week ending July 29 about $26,000,000 were received by the treasury in exchange for legaltender notes, and the reserve rose far above $100,000,000. This movement in aid of the treasury was participated in by banks all over the country. Supplementing these contributions of gold was a pool formed by the leading dealers in foreign exchange to control that business and maintain rates at such a point as to minimize gold exportation. A recognized motive in this whole enterprise was to avoid a new bond issue by the government, which it was feared would strengthen the silver party in the presidential campaign. The undertaking of the bankers was entirely successful. ports of gold ceased, and the treasury's supply was abundant when, on August 20, the tide definitely turned and the importation of the precious metal began. This movement developed unexpected strength, and soon dispelled the apprehensions of a panic which had prevailed during the summer. A very large proportion of the imported gold was turned into the treasury, which by the end of September held $120,000,000. The import movement continued on a large scale throughout October, but at that time most of the metal went into private hoards in view of the election. Immediately after the election these hoardings came forth and poured into the treasury at a rate that temporarily overwhelmed the facilities for receiving them. — The deficit in the treasury for the year ending June 30 amounted to $26,042,244, about fifteen millions less than for the preceding year. For the new year expenses ran far ahead of receipts from the outset, and the excess for the first quarter (July, August and September) reached $24,000,000. A change in personnel of the cabinet took place in August through the resignation of the secretary of the interior, Hoke Smith, and the appoint

Ex