Page:English Historical Review Volume 35.djvu/618

 610 REVIEWS OF BOOKS October predominates in what is informingly distinguished as ' semi-capitalism ' is rightly relieved by touches of brighter paint than sour critics or pre- judiced foes of the ' capitalistic system ' are wont to use. For, while Mr. Fay has, in abundant measure, the happy gift of interest- ing narration, in which persons and afiairs, incidents and movements, are clearly seen and strongly drawn, he is also a diligent and competent re- searcher. His audience are primarily described as * students of Economics '. His present contribution to English economic history, betraying a discursive- ness and abruptness of transition that may be due to its origin, could be more closely knit together if a regular treatise, methodically planned and consecutively linked, were in view. But the preface modestly treats as the ' highest ' hope that ' can be entertained ' the wish that the student may be directed to * other and better books ' ; and the author, both here and in his second index of acts of parliament, as well as on fitting occasions in the text, supplies besides copious references useful hints for the actual consultation of first-hand authorities. The period dealt with, moreover, is so crucial that it demands scrutiny from every angle, and the publication of these lectures would have been justified if they had accomplished no worthier task than the limited but opportune service of presenting briefly and agreeably the main outcome of late research. This work is done with skill, judgement, and effect. One instance is the section on the early British socialism, long ignored, which anticipated, and indeed inspired, the chief theory, at least, of Marx. In another case, that of the Chartists, by a capricious irony, since the publica- tion of this book, the second volume of Mr. Beer's History of British Socialism has, as we judge, added a better and fuller estimate, filling half of its contents, to the goodly number, which Mr. Fay emphasizes, of recent descriptions of the hopes and deeds, the acute divisions, the abortive essays, and the enduring influence of the leaders and followers of that movement. We should nevertheless do an injustice if we did not add, in concluding our remarks, that Mr. Fay himself has advanced some unfamiliar views, if he has not brought forward unknown facts. His commentary, indeed, is throughout informing, and, as we have noticed, it is not narrow or unfair. It is independent and yet sympathetic. We wish, however, to call special attention to two important matters on which he has, as we consider, thrown new or brighter light. Reference has been made already to his introduction of the term ' semi-capitalism ' ; and by its use he contrasts effectively the misery of the framework knitters and the hand-loom weavers, whose * tragedy ' was the ' slowness of their passing ', with the more regular status and the better condition, reported by 1833, of the cotton-factory employees, particularly in the larger establishments, where ' responsibility ' could be ' located ' and the cost of legal restrictions would not crush a ' paying ' enterprise. His compari- son of the indefiniteness of 'semi-capitalism' and the defined relations of a more developed system is certainly illuminating. No less instructive are his pregnant observations on the old and new poor law. The notorious ' Speenhamland Act ', as he shows, was virtually dictated by a situation for which the famous Elizabethan law could not have provided, and» on the other hand, the lauded and abused measure of 1834, designed for rural