Is it true, as stated on p. 565 of _The Monist_ for July, that Stuart Mill adopted Hume’s “erroneous conception of causality” to the extent implied in the following passage? “This idea of ‘sequence’ however was exactly Hume’s mistake, adopted by Mr. Mill, and through Mr. Mill popularised among English thinkers. If the nature of cause and effect were really constituted by invariable sequence, then the night might be called the effect of the day because night is invariably consequent upon day.” The only authority at hand on the island from which I write is Clemenceau’s translation of Mill’s “Auguste Comte and Positivism,” where, on p. 61, I read as follows, “The succession of day and night is just as much an invariable succession as the alternate exposition of the earth’s two opposite sides to the sun. Yet day and night are not the cause of each other; why? Because their succession, although invariable, according to our experience, is not so unconditionally: these phenomena succeed each other only upon the condition that the presence and the absence of the sun succeed each other; and if this alternation were to cease, day and night would not follow each other. There are thus two kinds of uniformities of succession, one without conditions, the other dependent on the former: laws of causation, and other successions which depend on these laws.” In a note Mill refers to his _System of Deductive and Inductive Logic_. LOUIS BELROSE, JR. SOME REMARKS UPON PROFESSOR JAMES’S DISCUSSION OF ATTENTION. In his recent treatise on psychology Professor James discusses in an interesting and suggestive way the relation of ideation to attention, maintaining that “ideational preparation ... is concerned in all attentive acts.” Attention is “anticipatory imagination” or “preperception” which prepares the mind for what it is to experience. Thus the schoolboy, listening for the clock to strike twelve, anticipates in imagination and is prepared to hear perfectly the very first sound of the striking.