read at Oxford, both as good prose and as good history. The future critic will hardly know which half of this statement is most surprising. W. J. ASHLEY

Ouvriers du. Temps Passé (xve—xvie siècles). Par H. HAUSER, Professeur à la Faculté du Lettres de l'Université de Clermont-Ferrand. (Paris: Félix Alcan.) 1899. Pp. xxxviii

252.

THIS is a useful book; it is based upon independent research in the craft archives preserved in Paris, and it adds to our knowledge of an obscure period in the history of industry. But it shows either that M. Hauser's preliminary reading has been somewhat limited, or else that certain notions about the craft organisations of the middle ages are more widely prevalent in France than I had supposed. For M. Hauser throughout assumes an attitude of protest against what he repeatedly calls the "idyllic" view of his subject. He again and again tells us that people will be surprised to learn that everything did not work quite smoothly in the métiers jurés, and that their members were not always actuated by brotherly love and civic patriotism; he seems somewhat surprised himself. I must confess my ignorance of the works of MM. Blanc ("tout imprégnés de socialisme chrétien") and du Bourg, who seem to be arch-idyllists. But I suppose the well-known treatise of M. Émile Levasseur, the Histoire des Classes ouvrières, is still the most considerable French work on the subject. M. Hauser, who dedicates his treatise to that " illustrious master," does little more, on several of the topics of which he treats, than "develop and confirm some pages of his history." But certainly no student of M. Levasseur's work would be likely to have an exaggerated belief in the symmetry and moral beauty of "the gild system." And the books of M. Fagniez-whose name would perhaps be the next to occur to one-are certainly not open to that particular criticism. As M. Hauser, therefore, had no need to cool the emotions. of the serious student, we must hope that his work will find its way to the sentimental public, if it really deserves the cold water he is so ready to bestow.

Another observation M. Hauser's book suggests is that it would be well if French scholars would learn enough German to acquaint themselves with the literature of their subject in that language. On this matter of "Zunft-wesen," there are in German several excellent treatises and piles of specialist monographs; and if M. Hauser could have given two or three days to this literature, he would have gained some valuable ideas as to the significance of his own material. He would, for instance, have found that the tendency of the "masters" to monopolise the advantages of the métier is a perfectly well-known and almost universal feature in the development of the fifteenth century all over Western Europe: "die Entartung der Zünfte" is by

this time a well-worn phrase. What is even more to the point, he would have become familiar with the distinction between "the gildsystem" and "the domestic system "-the Hausindustrie or Verlagssystem of the Germans. And if he had been familiar with it, “la soierie de Toulouse" in 1553 would have been more to him than "une organisation très curieuse": he would have discovered in it the beginnings of one of the great typical forms of industrial structure.

However, if M. Hauser dissents from the sentimentalists, he dissents equally from "the economists" (as, unfortunately, that term is still understood in France, thanks to the Academy of Moral Sciences!). He has even the courage to express his utter distrust of M. d'Avenel's pretentious averages. This is an encouraging feature: it shows that M. Hauser's "purely historical" attitude is not a mere euphemism for doctrinaire liberalism; and it makes one anticipate more illuminating work in the future, when he knows more round and about his special theme. But it is amusing to observe one point in which M. Hauser and M. d'Avenel are at odds. M. d'Avenel maintains that the corporations did not affect wages-meaning that they did not keep them above their "natural" level; M. Hauser maintains that they did affect wages-meaning that they kept them below the "natural" level. But is not M. d'Avenel thinking chiefly of what the "customer" or other employer among the public paid to the mastercraftsman? and is not M. Hauser thinking of what the master-craftsman paid to the "compagnon"? The fact is, we can make little progress unless we distinguish between the various kinds of occupation and their relations to the public. To lump together the pastry-cook, the goldsmith, the weaver, and the mason, because they all belonged to métiers, is to produce a blurred picture which corresponds to no reality. This, I think, those who have given their attention to the problems of medieval industry, are coming more and more to realise. W. J. ASHLEY

Select Charters and other Documents illustrative of American History, 1606-1775. Edited, with Notes, by WILLIAM MACDONALD, Professor of History and Political Science in Bowdoin College. (New York and London: Macmillan.) 1899. Pp. 401.

If imitation is the sincerest flattery, Dr. Stubbs has good reason to be satisfied with at least one of his achievements. The two volumes of Mr. Gardiner and Mr. Prothero have carried the method of the original Select Charters into the later periods of English constitutional history; and now Professor Macdonald, with this collection and his previous book of Select Documents for United States History, 1776-1861, applies it to the daughter commonwealth. And as half of his colonial documents really are charters, he is able to use the same hallowed title. May it carry with it a like good fortune! It is No. 39.-VOL. X.

C C

certainly a most convenient compilation that he has given us; and any one who has mastered it contents will have laid a solid foundation for subsequent study.

Yet useful as it is so far as it goes, it is to be regretted that it is not more completely adequate to its purpose. To begin with, there is a very noticeable paucity of material for the first sixty years of the eighteenth century. Only seven of the documents belong to this period. out of a total of eighty; and of these only two, the Molasses Act and the Albany Plan of Union, are of any great significance. The editor apparently feels some regret that his volume should reflect "the meagre treatment of this neglected period' by historians great and small." It has, indeed, been neglected: most writers construe the history of 1700-1760 either forward, from what they know of 1620-1692, or backward, from what they know of 1761-1776. But I confess I cannot see why Mr. Macdonald should not have done something to remedy this defect. Considering that the scope of the volume is American "history," and not simply "constitutional history," it would have been well worth while to have given one or two documents apiece to such topics as currency, banking, the Crown timber claims, and the fear of Episcopacy-all of them matters which had a direct bearing upon the Revolution.

Then, again, I doubt whether Mr. Macdonald has done well so entirely to exclude everything which did not directly concern territories now forming part of the United States. Even his great exemplar, Dr. Stubbs, furnished a background for his English documents in the form of excerpts from Cæsar and Tacitus. And if the student could be given, let us say, the charter of one of the great city companies, together with that of the Merchant Adventurers and that of the East India Company, he would find himself much better able to understand the early charters of Virginia and Massachusetts. Moreover, even on the American side of the Atlantic there were other English colonies besides those on the mainland, and others on the mainland besides those which revolted from England. Just why certain continental colonies, to the number of thirteen, should have allied themselves together against the home government, and no others, is one of the problems to be solved: but to carefully abstain from casting a glance outside the thirteen during the whole course of their history is to suggest a degree of connection among them from the first which certainly did not exist.

And again, granting if you will that the life of the several colonies is best looked at as it unfolded itself at home, yet it cannot be completely realised unless we remember that it was a part-an almost independent part, if you like—of an imperial system. For this reason it would have been well to have printed a few such documents as the Commission of 1696 creating the Board of Trade, or a typical set of Instructions to a colonial Governor.

But all these deficiences might be repaired, and some other not

easily-negligeable additions made-e.g., the substance of the Quebec. Act-without adding more than a hundred pages to the volume; and then it would not be in the least too unwieldy for class use. Let me express the hope, and the expectation, that a second edition will soon make this possible. W. J. ASHLEY

Democracy and Empire. By FRANKLIN HENRY GIDDINGS. (New York the Macmillan Co. 1900. 8s. 6d. net.)

Ir is difficult to give an account of a book which ranges over such a variety of topics as Democracy and Empire. We have chapters on the moral and psychological conditions of political existence, on strictly economic and administrative problems such as the control of railroads by the state; upon the service which a right system of education may render to democracy; upon the prospects of government by the majority, and upon the meaning and justification of imperialism. In such a book there must be many gaps, and many subjects must be rather superficially dealt with. We read with a certain degree of interest, but we find it hard to say at the close how much we have learnt. One thing is clear, that Professor Giddings is a keen imperialist. He holds that the actual tendency of modern politics is to the assumption of control by the more civilised over the less civilised races, in other words, to the subjugation of all other peoples, by the peoples of European origin. There is much evidence in favour of this opinion. All communities are engaged in a struggle for existence. The strong encroach upon the weak and absorb or destroy them. Modern civilisation has armed the European with all but irresistible weapons for this conflict. No seas are so wide, no mountains so rugged, no deserts so hot, no marshes so pestilential, but that they can be traversed by the modern adventurer, and close on the adventurer's heels follows the authority of his state. But Professor Giddings has further convinced himself that the process is justifiable in itself, beneficial to the world, and innocuous to popular government. On these points there is more room for difference or, at least, for suspense of judgment than on the question of fact. A certain degree of likeness or of homogeneity, says Professor Giddings, is necessary for the continuance of a society. Such homogeneity was once secured by the bond of kinship, by common religious belief, or even by habitual dwelling together. But now all that is needed is a certain ethical homogeneity, a certain consensus as to first principles of morals and government. This kind of homogeneity may extend over indefinite areas and embrace an indefinite number of persons. We might object that agreement on certain primary axioms of morals and politics is a somewhat negative bond of union. It existed among the states of classical Greece. It exists among the states of modern Europe. Yet Greece was, and Europe is, the battlefield of international ambition and jealousy. A still more comprehensive agreement as to first principles of conduct may be traced between ourselves and the

people of the United States. Yet the relations between the two nations have rarely been cordial. The ties of kinship, of a common religion and of a common civilization have not always sufficed to ensure mutual goodwill.

Nor is ethical homogeneity easily attainable without these. Within the British Empire the ethical ideas of Hindus and Mohammedans differ, and probably always will differ, from those of Christians; the Roman Catholic has one way of regarding ethics, the Protestant another; nay, the Australian or the Irishman may differ in this respect from the Englishman. Great empires are held together chiefly by a mixture of selfinterest and deference for power. The natives of India find that the British Government really desires and promotes their welfare; they do not know what would happen if it came to an end; and they do know that the Indian army is highly efficient. The Canadian or Australian is bound to us by ties of blood and sympathy, but no less by fear of aggression on the part of foreign nations.

As to the moral character of the process by which empires are built up a calm observer will moderate his praise or blame. In a world where there is no supreme authority, the strong instinctively take what they want. Societies either barbarous, or politically disordered, or extremely corrupt in morals, are unable to defend themselves and tend to disappear. The result is often good, but we should not deceive ourselves as to the motive. No nation ever conquered another out of disinterested anxiety to promote the welfare of the conquered. The results of widely-extended empire are scarcely examined in this book. But Professor Giddings would doubtless say that it promotes peace, assists economic development, and aids the general growth of civilisation, Great empires have sometimes done all these things; but it is a question how much harm they have done in repressing national life and individual character. Professor Giddings is confident that popular government has nothing to fear from the growth of dominions. But he seems to rely too much upon the case of the British empire. The British empire is scattered over the globe; the greater part of it is but nominally subject to the home government, and the circumstances of the Indian army are such that it can never be a danger to the constitution. But suppose that the United States were to form a continental empire by the conquest of central and southern America. A great army would be necessary, a great commander might arise. If such a commander, strong in the admiration of the people and the fidelity of his troops, were to end the scandals of American politics, to reform the finances, to harmonise the laws, to do something like justice between classes and corporations, and to establish a thoroughly effective administration, at the same time conciliating the conquered peoples, is it so certain that the American constitution would be widely regretted or that any dangerous insurrection against the new Cæsar would have to be feared? Professor Giddings makes much of local self-government and the common law as means of