“By the historian it can be safely passed over. Even for the general reader of moderate historical training it will be of little value.”
| − | Ann. Am. Acad. 30: 150. Jl. ’07. 410w. |
“In style he certainly does not approach Motley, nor does he impress the reader with the feeling of a first-hand contact with the fresh sources of information opened up of recent years. But our chief objection is to having our history bent to the shape of a political tract. Considered as a history, the book is too evidently biassed not to inspire suspicion; as a political tract it is twenty times too long.”
| − | Ath. 1907, 1: 757. Je. 22. 230w. |
“Mr. Barker’s style is bright and vivid. His references to authorities are numerous, and there is an excellent analytical index of thirty-six pages. The book is well worth reading by Americans interested in the study of national federation and state-rights.” William Elliot Griffis.
| + − | Dial. 42: 250. Ap. 16, ’07. 1340w. |
“Despite his claim to originality and freshness many pages have an antiquated air. On the whole, a vigorous, suggestive book. Despite the author’s limitations, it provokes thought.”
| + − | Ind. 62: 913. Ap. 18, ’07. 320w. |
“With the aim that Mr. Ellis Barker sets before him it is possible to be in entire sympathy and at the same time to hold that his arguments are unsound and untrustworthy, because they are based on false premises and bad history. It is, in short, evident throughout this book that the author has failed to make himself acquainted with the intricate machinery of the Netherland system of government on which he dogmatizes.”
| + − | Lond. Times. 6: 41. F. 8, ’07. 1970w. |