which has been beyond question a workingman movement. has commanded anything like the full strength of the workingman in politics. The best showing it ever made in a parliamentary election was in December, 1918, when it returned sixty-one members to the House of Commons out of a total of over six hundred. This means that the majority of the workingmen never have supported the Labour Party platform at the polls. Most of them are still to be found in the ranks of the Liberals and of the Conservatives. And the influence of the workingman in modern English politics has been much more potent in modifying the program of the old middle-class parties than it has been in promoting the program of its own. The practical consideration behind the reorganization of the Labour Party in 1917 was probably the realization by its leaders after nearly forty years of effort that class politics, successful as they were in continental Europe, could not be made to go in England. The Labour Party as a workingman's party was a failure, and it was on the whole well for English democracy that it was so. For democracy must build its hopes not on class distinction but on class co-operation, not on interests which conflict but on interests which conform.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

There is a great mass of literature bearing on almost every phase of this subject though there is nothing which deals with it as a whole. It may be worth while to suggest some of the more useful books for a more detailed study. On the early craft guilds one of the best brief accounts is in E. Lipson, An Introduction to the Economic History of England, I, chap. vii. On the decay of the craft guilds, cf. G. Unwin, Industrial Organization in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, and also, for less detailed accounts, W. J. Ashley, The Economic Organization of England, chaps. ii, v; and J. A. Hobson, The Evolution of Modern Capitalism. For the Levellers Movement, G. P. Gooch, English Democratic Ideas in the Seventeenth Century, and T. C. Pease, The Levellers Movement, may be consulted. There is no single adequate study of the Industrial Revolution in English. Its earlier phases are admirably discussed in P. Mantoux, La Révolution industrielle au XVIIIe siècle en Angleterre. There are three volumes by J. L. and Barbara Hammond which cover well the effect of the Industrial Revolution upon the workingman. They are entitled: (1) The Village Labourer, 1760–1832; (2) The Town Labourer, 1760–1822; (3) The Skilled Labourer, 1760-1832. The effect of the French Revolution upon political reform in England is well handled in G. S. Veitch, The Genesis of Parliamentary Reform, and in E. R. Kent, The Early English Radicals. A convenient annual survey of economic conditions in England from 1800 to 1832 will be found in W. Smart, Economic Annals of the Nineteenth Century. G. Slater, The Making of Modern England, chaps. i, iv, is particularly good on the situation immediately following the Napoleonic Wars. For the unrest associated with the passage of the Great Reform Bill, cf. J. R. M. Butler, The Passing of the Great Reform Bill, chaps. i, iii, vi. G. Wallas, Life of Francis Place, is easily the best thing on the political unions of 1832. The rise of English socialism and the views of the English socialists of the 1820's are well treated in M. Beer, A History of English Socialism, I.

On the origin of the English trade unions and on their whole history there is one excellent book, S. and B. Webb, History of Trade Unionism, of which a new edition has just appeared. Cf. also George Howell, Labour Legislation, Labour Movements and Labour Leaders. On contemporary English trade unions the English Labour Year Book, particularly the volume for 1916, contains a fund of excellent material. The Chartist Movement has been much written about in English and in German, though the best study is in French, i.e., E. Dolléans, Le Chartisme, 1830–48. In English the best single account is by Mark Hovell, The Chartist Movement; cf. also F. F. Rosenblatt, The Chartist Movement in Its Social and Economic Aspects, and F. W. Slosson, The Decline of the Chartist Movement. On the relations of the workingman to politics since Chartism there is very little of value. The Webbs give something in their History of Trade Unions and G. Howell rather more in his study of labor movements cited above. One phase of it is treated very superficially in A. W. Humphrey, A History of Labour Representation. Unfortunately there is no study comparable to Butler's Passing of the Great Reform Bill for the later reform bills of 1867 and 1884. Charles Seymour, Electoral Reform in England and Wales, chap. x, contains a good account of the way in which the labor vote was cast between 1867 and 1884. The history of the modern English Labor Party has yet to be written, though there is an excellent summary of the main facts in the English Labour Year Book for 1916; cf. also, for a rather unsympathetic account, A. L. Lowell, The Government of England, II, chap. xxxiii, which brings the story down to 1908. The program of the Labour Party as stated in 1917 and the reorganization in that year is very well explained in A. Henderson, The Aims of Labour. For a sympathetic treatment of the workingman in current English politics the English weekly, the New Statesman, is perhaps the best place to look. Sidney Webb's occasional contributions to the New Republic are excellent though not always unbiased.

THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES

BY J. SPENCER DICKERSON, Secretary

APPOINTMENTS

In addition to reappointments the following appointments have been made by the Board of Trustees:

Fred Terry Rogers, Assistant Professor in the Department of Physiology.

Leonard D. White, Associate in the Department of Political Science. Appointment of Conyers Read to a non-resident professorship in the Department of History.

Employment of a visiting nurse to be under the direction of the Health Department.

Professor of Military Science and Tactics was made ex officio member of the Board of Physical Culture and Athletics.

RESIGNATIONS

The Board of Trustees has accepted the resignations of the following members of the faculties:

Yoshio Ishida, Research Instructor in the Department of Physics. Elbert Clark, Associate Professor in the Department of Anatomy. R. S. Bracewell, Associate in the Department of Chemistry. Theodore B. Hinckley, Teacher in the University High School. Lillian Cushman Brown, Instructor in Art in the College of Education.

Leo Finkelstein, Instructor in the Department of Chemistry.
Conyers Read, Professor in the Department of History.

GIFTS

The E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Company Corporation renews for the year 1920-21 the gift of $750 for a Fellowship in the Department of Chemistry.

Mr. Charles R. Crane renews for another four-year period his subscription to support the work in Russian Language and Institutions. John F. McMillan has bequeathed the sum of $1,000 as an endowment fund.

Mr. Charles H. Swift provides the sum of $500 for the expenses of a trip to Asia for scientific investigation by Assistant Professor Wellington Downing Jones of the Department of Geology.

The donor of the Theology Building in addition to the previous gift of $200,000 has pledged a further gift of $100,000 toward the erection of the building.

A donor whose name is withheld presents a collection of lithographed portraits of nineteenth- and twentieth-century authors and scientists made by William Rothenstein of London.

The National Association of Audubon Societies presents to the Museum of the School of Education a valuable collection of birds and feathers.

JOHN CRERAR

BY THOMAS W. GOODSPEED

This sketch begins and ends with the last will and testament of John Crerar. In more respects than one that will was unique. It had the following very unusual beginning:

My father, John Crerar, a native of Scotland, died in New York when I was an infant, leaving my mother, my brother Peter and myself his only heirs. My mother remained a widow for a number of years and was then married to William Boyd. The issue of this second marriage was one son, my half brother, George William Boyd, who died unmarried in 1860. My step father died in 1864, and my mother was again left a widow with her two sons, Peter and myself. My mother died March 28, 1873, and my brother Peter died in 1883, a widower, leaving no children.

My mother's maiden name was Agnes Smeallie. She was born in Scotland in 1795 and a line of relationship on her side is clearly defined.

My first cousins are children of my late uncles, James and John Smeallie, late of Florida and West Galway, State of N.Y., brothers of my mother. Through them I have second cousins and third cousins. These cousins, first, second and third can be readily traced: some I have seen, others only heard of by the hearing of

the ear.

With these explanations it remains with me to make a disposition of my estate. I am a bachelor and was born in New York City, but have been a citizen of Chicago since 1862.

It will be noted that in this unique preface to the will the slightest possible mention is made of the father, and none whatever of any relatives on his father's side, while much is told of the mother and of first, second, and even third cousins on her side. And yet so far as the records show the Crerars were a more ancient and numerous family than the Smeallies. The Crerars appear in the earliest Scottish parish registers of marriages and births. These important records seem to have been instituted, at least in the country districts of Scotland, by the Presbyterian church when it displaced the Catholic church in the beginning of the seventeenth century. The register of the parish of Kenmore records the marriage on May 14, 1637, of "John Dow Crearar" and again in 1640 of "John Dow Crerar," evidently his second marriage. This carelessness about the spelling of family names seems to have been common in Scotland. The Crerars were a numerous family and were scattered through many parishes. They belonged to the common people and appear, for the most part, to have lived in country districts and, probably, followed agriculture.