workers in history the Society deservedly stands high- until some unfortunate seeks to use some of the manuscript material stored in its cases. We mention this with all due respect for the rules needed to assure the safety of these precious and unique records, and with even greater respect for the sterling qualities of the Council, who have from time to time kept watch upon the entrance to these stores. That they have exemplified the traits of the faithful watch-dog (always eminently praiseworthy when not in opposition) is to their credit; that they have at times, and generally most unjustly, been clothed by the disappointed applicant with some of the attributes of the dog in the manger, is their misfortune, and the reputation of the Society upon the side of generous assistance to the delver in musty papers and to the honest drudge in historical labors of minute importance to every one but himself has suffered in consequence. We are aware that the last ten years have shown some improvement in this direction, but we believe there is room for further development. While the manuscript collections were not arranged and not indexed, there was an excuse for this restricted, almost prohibitive system. Those conditions no longer exist, and any one who has worked in a large collection of manuscripts realizes how impossible it is for any one man (even for our able and industrious editor), for any number of men, to begin to exhaust the possibilities of interest and historical reference, or to affect in any degree the value of these collections to the Society. In this the Society has a trust to perform, and one to be used for the public benefit. We commend therefore the example of the United States Department of State and the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, both of which were forbidding monopolizers of their stores, and both have found their interest in offering freely the use of their riches to all who may show reasonable credentials. A generous treatment invites generous treatment, and there are many even in this State who would prefer to place their collections where the student and even the public may have almost free access to and the use of them, to depositing them in a place to which even the worthy experience difficulty in gaining entrance.

BOSTON, 11 April, 1901.

Respectfully submitted,

WORTHINGTON C. FORD.
A. McF. DAVIS.

Rev. MORTON DEXTER, chairman of the Committee to nominate Officers, reported the following list; and the gentlemen named were duly elected:

:

For President.

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS.

For Vice-Presidents.

SAMUEL ABBOTT GREEN.

THOMAS JEFFERSON COOLIDGE.

For Recording Secretary.
EDWARD JAMES YOUNG.

For Corresponding Secretary.
HENRY WILLIAMSON HAYNES.

For Treasurer.

CHARLES CARD SMITH.

For Librarian.

SAMUEL ABBOTT GREEN.

For Cabinet-Keeper.

HENRY FITCH JENKS.

For Members at Large of the Council.

JAMES SCHOULER.

JAMES FORD RHODES.

THORNTON KIRKLAND LOTHROP.

JAMES BRADLEY THAYER.

ANDREW MCFARLAND DAVIS.

Dr. Green having been elected to fill two offices, thereby reducing the actual number of members of the Council below thirteen, Mr. Dexter moved that Mr. Archibald Cary Coolidge be elected an additional member to serve during the ensuing year, and the motion was adopted.

The President read the following paper on the election of Honorary Members:

Gentlemen,As you are aware, two deaths have recently occurred among those whose names are borne on our roll of Honorary Membership; the Right Rev. Mandell Creighton, Bishop of London, died in January, and the Hon. William Maxwell Evarts during the month of February. The almost

simultaneous occurrence of these two vacancies in a list numbering ten names only, furnishes an appropriate occasion to discuss and decide a matter which for some time past has been, for certain members of our Society, subject of debate. I refer to the composition of our Honorary and Corresponding rolls, and the considerations which have influenced our selections for them. It would seem that the distinction between the Honorary and the Corresponding membership of the Society has never been very clearly defined. The inference which would naturally be drawn from an examination of the names found upon the two rolls through a series of years is that, formerly, no limit in number existed, or was recognized, in the case of either; and it was the custom of the Society to elect individuals somewhat indiscriminately, whether to the one or to the other. A different system has prevailed during more recent years, dating from 1855.1 Since then it has been our practice, by virtue of a self-imposed limit amounting to an unwritten law, to confine the Honorary list to ten names and the Corresponding to fifty. Moreover, as the names on the Honorary roll have one by one disappeared through death, it has become an established usage to place upon it, either by immediate election or by transfer from the list of Corresponding members, some foreigner distinguished in the field of historical research. It thus results that, at present, of the eight names remaining on the Honorary list, one only, Carl Schurz, is that of an American.

A suggestion on this point has recently been made in the Council, which I am now authorized by it to bring before the Society at large for informal consideration. It has been the custom of the French Institute, and perhaps also of other notable foreign associations, from time to time to crown, as the expression goes, some literary production judged to be of exceptional merit and permanent value. Our field, of course, is limited to history. Accordingly, it has now been proposed that our usage in regard to the inscription of names upon the Honorary roll should undergo a further change, and become hereafter, in so far as this Society is concerned, in the nature of an indication of its most mature judgment as to the eminence reached by historical writers, or the production of works of exceptional value. So far as the estimate of this Society

1 Proceedings, 2d series, vol. x. pp. 326, 327.

has significance, the placing of a name on the Honorary roll would hereafter, if this course were followed, be a crowning of the bearer of the name, a mark of supreme recognition. Our Honorary list as at present composed distinctly lends itself to the adoption of this rule. Those on it are all names which it would be generally agreed should under such a rule or usage be inscribed thereon, were they not so inscribed already. This is certainly true of Dr. Masson, first by seniority, whose Life of Milton has for a generation maintained itself as a monument of indefatigable investigation and historical insight. The present Bishop of Oxford follows; and it may safely be said that in this new historical school, that based more especially on a profound study of original sources, no one has been, or is, more eminent or universally recognized than William Stubbs. Next is Theodor Mommsen; him it is only necessary to name. Mr. Lecky follows; and his right to follow, few would be disposed to challenge. Mr. Schurz, it is true, has not been specially identified with historical work; but his general eminence has been such that his Life of Clay affords good ground for the inscription of his name. Samuel Rawson Gardiner comes next; he surely calls for no comment. Finally, what American would question the propriety of putting the name of the Right Hon. James Bryce or that of Sir George Otto Trevelyan on any roll, literary or historical? And these complete our list. I submit, it is a distinguished company,a galaxy of great names; and we have honored ourselves in honoring them.

Were the suggestion now made as to the future treatment of the Honorary roll adopted by the Society, it would, of course, obviously be proper that American, as well as European, historical writers should be considered in connection. with it. Looking over our American record it is immediately apparent that, during the last half century, few indeed not citizens of Massachusetts would, measured by the high standard suggested, have been fairly considered in this connection; for it is very noticeable how large a proportion of those Americans who have attained distinction in the field of historical literature during that period have been both citizens of Massachusetts and members of our Society. Indeed, it may well be questioned whether a half-dozen of outside names could in all be mentioned which would escape challenge. Among them,

George Bancroft, Washington Irving and J. Hammond Trumbull are conspicuous.

The suggestion of hereafter thus treating our Honorary list as a recognition on our part of what may be considered supreme accomplishment in the historical field, is now submitted for consideration. The Council hope it may be discussed. Formal action is not necessary; but should no adverse sentiment be developed, the Council will consider that the suggestion commends itself to the judgment of the Society, and that the vacancies now existing in the roll, or which may hereafter occur in it, will be filled on the basis proposed. In so doing, however, it would be necessary somewhat to deviate from the practice heretofore pursued under our By-laws. Hereafter, whenever a vacancy occurs in the Honorary list, which it is proposed to fill, it would seem altogether becoming, in view of the significance of the action then about to be taken, that, before a name is presented from the Council, the Society at large should be consulted and some consensus of opinion reached. Even if names which will bear discussion are not numerous, the field is wide, and the question presented would always be interesting. I am, therefore, directed by the Council to give informal notice that, should no adverse sentiment now develop, those present at the May meeting will be invited to express their judgments as to who in the broad field of historical expression, European and American, would be the most suitable person to fill the vacancy caused by the death of the Bishop of London. The Council will then take the matter under advisement, and, at the June meeting, report a name to be passed upon by the Society at large in October.

Rev. MORTON DEXTER communicated the memoir of the late Rev. Edward G. Porter, which he had been appointed to prepare for publication in the Proceedings.

A new serial of the Proceedings, comprising the record of the February Meeting, was ready for delivery at this meeting.

After the adjournment the members, with invited guests, were entertained at luncheon in the Ellis Hall by the President.