in the Middle Ages, and its more prominent features are here summarized as the looseness of imperial control, giving to the great feudatories larger and more centralized power within their own territories, and aiding the decline of the lower nobility; the rise of a world market, and with it a division of the towns between a patriciate of merchants and a proletariate of artisans; the growth of an independent professional class capable of thinking for itself, and able to diffuse its ideas through the invention of printing; and a dearth of money, due to the rapid discontinuance of exchange in kind, and resulting in a general dearness of prices. Moreover, the cry against ecclesiastical abuses and against the drain of wealth into Italy through ecclesiastical channels had grown in volume with the advent of Luther, and one finds that the exasperation of the revolted peasants, and of the few knights who led them, was discharged in an especial degree on the property of the Church.

From the beginning of the fifteenth century the general mind of Germany had been working itself into a state of excitement and expectancy, which appeared first in a mystical notion of some imperial Messiah, who should come to centralize Government and establish just laws, and afterwards, when successive emperors had disappointed the hope, in a conviction that the common man must right his grievances by his own arm. There were current a number of ideal constitutions, ascribed to the different emperors, and enjoining a return to a primitive communism and such particular reforms as the opening of roads, the abolition of taxes, dues, and levies, restriction of trading capital, uniformity of weights and measures, and, in fact, a thorough demolition of the feudal structure, together with the debarring of Roman and Canon law, and the secularization of Church fiefs. These demands, and others belonging rather to the religious movement, are to be found in the various schemes for remodelling society which came from the leaders in the Peasants' War,-in the "Evangelical Divine Reformation" of the Empire conceived by the Franconians Weigand and Hipler, in the religious communism of the Thuringian Thomas Münzer, and in the vision of a simplified peasant-state which floated before the most gifted and interesting of them, the Tyrolese leader, Michael Gaismayr. Lassalle has remarked that, in so far as the idea of the movement was communistic, it was out of line with historical development and with Protestantism itself, and therefore doomed to failure.

But these political ideals, long as they had been in the air, do not seem to have appealed to the peasantry, nor were they really popularized among the town proletariate, which forms a distinct

section of the revolt. The men who formulated them were mostly expriests and theological professors, and born in a higher station of life than the mass of their followers. The famous "Twelve Articles" of the Swabian peasants demand only the abolition of customary burdens and restrictions, with the right to choose their own clergy, and the appeal is always to the Bible. "We are in no doubt but that ye will, as true and just Christians, relieve us from villeinage, or show us out of the Gospel that we are villeins." One might say that the peasants took the ideas of the Reformation, as the French afterwards took the theories of the philosophers, and, in De Tocqueville's phrase, "adjusted them to their passions," expressing by "Divine Justice" what was afterwards called natural rights. The war itself is a miserable story. The revolt began in the early spring of 1525, with a disturbance in the Black Forest, spread from mere contact over the whole of central Europe, from Styria to Lorraine, and before the end of June was crushed in detail by the Swabian League. There was scarcely any organization, or discipline, or concerted action; except in the Tyrol, none of the objects of the war were achieved; and the excesses with which it began are some faint excuse for the cruelty with which it was suppressed. We learn once again that the common people cannot make a revolution of themselves. Mr. Bax wants that scientific possession of his subject which is needful for good and suggestive history, and his narrative suffers somewhat from the disjointed nature of the action. He has allowed his indignation to break through the restraint proper to an historian, and his discursions on the wickedness of governing classes are not useful. But the general reader, for whom he has intended to write, will find this account of the Peasants' War clear, interesting, and sufficient.

A. M. D. HUGHES.

SOME RECENT CRITICISMS ON THE NEW TRADES COMBINATION MOVEMENT.

SINCE

INCE the appearance in this Review of a series of articles on the above subject and their recent publication in book form,1 a good many newspapers, magazines, and trade journals have taken notice of the scheme itself, and also of the manner in which it has been explained to the public. These notices have not been confined to this country; for, in fact, other countries, and especially the United States of America, have suffered from the stress of unrestricted competition no less than ourselves. It is not my intention, however, to fall foul of my critics; indeed, so far from that, I wish to express my thanks for the pains which have evidently been taken to understand this new development of combination, in some cases even to the extent of translating the articles. I had not the least idea ten years ago, that a scheme which was not quite in accord with the old economic teaching as to the relative positions and claims of Capital and Labour would, during the period of my own life, engage the attention of so many thinkers and writers. But no one can deny that during recent years considerable modifications have taken place in the opinions generally held in regard to these practical questions. Old notions die hard in England, and we seldom learn except by bitter experience. But it has been found impossible to ignore the lessons which strikes and lockouts with their inevitable consequences have forced upon us. The methods I am testing may be condemned by some people, but it seems to be acknowledged that they cannot be laid aside

1 The New Trades Combination Movement: Its Principles, Methods, and Progress. By E. J. SMITH. With an Introduction by the Rev. J. CARTER, M.A., Bursar of Pusey House, Oxford. [xxiv., 96 pp. Crown 8vo. 28. Rivingtons. London, 1899.]

VOL. X.-No. 2.

L

as unworthy of notice. I have naturally been interested in reading the opinions which have been expressed in so many quarters, more especially those of a critical character, and which give evidence of a desire to understand the subject and to treat it fairly, no matter how severely. I have had very little to complain about in this respect. With the exception of one provincial daily newspaper, my modest endeavour to explain the plan has been received in a spirit with which I cannot find fault.

It has been somewhat instructive to watch the effect of the suggestion of a scheme like this upon the minds of representatives of the various interests concerned. No matter how much some people may try to deceive themselves, the dividing line between theory and practice is becoming more accentuated every year. What is called free competition (an attractive but most misleading term) has had a fairly generous and complete trial in this country. Until a few years ago one could more safely declare himself an infidel as to the Christian faith than a doubter as to free competition in trade. And indeed there was every reason for it. It is not the phrase, or the idea it is intended to convey, with which one can find fault. It is in the application of it that we have gone wrong. We have trained a good horse to death. It is all very well for the veterinary surgeon, even when supported by the trainer, to go on declaring that the horse is all right; but it is the jockey who has to ride the horse, and the owner who has to suffer because it is beaten, who are to be the final judges. Free competition is accepted by all as a grand doctrine while they are buying, but when they happen to be selling they are apt to regard it differently. The belief that manufacturers ought to be philanthropists is easy of acceptance by all but the manufacturers themselves, and those whom they have to compel to join in their philanthropy. But notwithstanding the hold which the theory of free competition has obtained in this country, and the thorough trial it has had, we are to-day face to face with the fact that we shall have to choose in the future between "rings" and "trusts" which aim at a complete removal of all competition whatever, or some more

just and reasonable method whereby each person may get what fairly belongs to him and no more.

That this is being generally recognized is evidenced by the way in which my articles have been received. The economists, and some who would pose as such, seem to be divided in opinion. Generally speaking they have so far treated the proposal as one worth discussing; but, as is perhaps only natural, their conclusions seem to depend largely upon their preconceived opinions. One can scarcely expect those who have established a reputation as the able exponents of a theory that one ought to sell at the best prices one can get, whether there is any profit on them or not, to forfeit any portion of that reputation by acknowledging that there is common sense in a proposal which would compel all to sell at a profit. I shall have something to say in answer to a representative of this school presently. On the other hand, I have received from a large number of economists of the new school the most encouraging letters and offers of help. I have evidence that in nearly every university in the world the principles of trade combination are being discussed, and lectures have been given on this particular scheme in Denmark, Germany, France, and America. Further explanations are frequently invited, and whatever may be the ultimate result, the interest is no doubt spreading. So far this is satisfactory, and to me at least it is gratifying from the fact that the support comes principally from those who try to do something more than teach in a merely academic fashion-that is to say, from those who mix with practical men, who are able to judge for themselves as to the effects of cut-throat competition, strikes, and lock-outs.

Of the daily newspapers I have little to say; they are no doubt waiting for results, and do not generally commit themselves beforehand. Their chief object at present seems to be to report such records of the doings of the several associations as they may be able to gather from any casual source of information; but the result is seldom helpful to those who really wish to understand the movement. To most of the trade journals, however, I owe my sincere thanks for the trouble they