The Interregnum: The Quest for Settlement 1646–1660 ed. by G.E. Aylmer (review)

REVIEWS 463 TheInterregnum: TheQuest for Settlement ß646-• 660. Editedbyc.E.AYLMER. Hamden, Conn.,ShoeStringPress, ArchonBooks, •97a.Pp.a48.$lO.OO. Thisisacollection of eightessays writtenbysomeof themostoutstanding historians of seventeenth-century England, alldealingwiththethemeof settlement duringthe fourteenyearsfollowingthesurrenderof Charles•inJune 1646.Suchisthecalibre of theessayists andtheoriginalityof thecontributions that nobrief reviewcando more than skim the surface of this volume, included in the Problems in Focus Series, editedandintroducedbyG.E.Aylmer. The basic themeof thebook,asAylmerpointsout,is'political settlement andthe failure to achieve it.' After a courteous bow in the direction of the economic and socio-demographic historians, theeditorunderlines thedifficulties attendantupon any attempt to meshthe contributions of thesescholars with thoseof the more conventional political historians. Soimprecise isourknowledge of populationtrends and soinadequatethe sources for seventeenth-century economichistorythat the relationshipbetweenpoliticalchanges and 'the underlyingeconomicand social realities of theseyears'canbebutdimlyperceived. The parameters of thevolumearethustraditional.BeginningwithValeriePearl's study of thePresbyterian party's moveagainst thearmyinthesummer of •647,the contributions focuson consecutive politicalproblems of the Interregnum,and includeKeithThomas 's studyof theLevellerposition onthefranchise, ClaireCross's analysis of the Cromwellianchurch,David Underdown'sessayon the localcommunities 'experience of theProtectorate, andAustinWoolrych's reviewof thesearch for stability in theyear-and-a-half following Cromwell's death. Giventhe politicalpreoccupations of the writers,it is not surprisingthat the volumeisfairlyconsistently anti-Marxist. Aylmerdevotes considerable space in his introductionto a critiqueof Dr Hill'sthesis on thenatureof theEnglishRevolution. In the end he suggests of sucha viewthat 'likethe roleof DivineProvidence in history,it isof moreuseasafirstcause, explainingeverything, thanasa proximate cause, explaining thingsin particular.' SimilarlyValeriePearlisskeptical of using 'simple class labels' toexplaintheparties of 1647,andKeithThomas's essay islargely arebuttalof C.B.Macpherson's workontheLevellers. Finally,J.P.Cooper's essay on thesocial andeconomic policies oftheCommonwealth specifically rejects Hill'sthesis ofafundamental discontinuity inseventeenth-century English history assignalled by thetriumphantbourgeoisie's Navigation Act. If thevolumecanbesaidtorejectthevalidityof socio-economic labels asheuristic devices, thesamemaynotbesaidof religious ones.Suchisour generalignorance on thesubject thatwemayrejoice thatValeriePearlandClaireCross arebothinterested in CivilWar Presbyterians, yet,for alltheirsubtlety, perhapstheyaccept thelabela littletooreadily.Pearldistinguished between Presbyterians whoare'high'andthose whoareerastian, andbetween layandclerical sections of themovement-bothuseful distinctions - yet shemighthavegonefurther in identifyingtheir essential ingredients .Her wholeessay ispremised onthefactthata majorpreoccupation of both parliamentary and Londonpoliticalgroupsin the 1645-7 periodwaswith the establishment of a Presbyterian church.Yet one wonderswhetherthisis not to 464 THE CANADIAN HISTORICAL REVIEW attribute a positive, ideological, andreligious quality to a forcethatmaywellbe essentially a negative andsecular response totheanarchy of thesectaries. Claire Cross points outthatthevoluntaristic Presbyterianism, established in x646,and which flourished insome cases through thex65os, was acceptable tomany clerics and laymen who would also have embraced themodified episcopacy mooted in•64•/2.In otherwords, aslongasthereformed church wasestablished, national, andbroadly tolerant withindefined boundaries, perhaps most laymen withinParliament andthe Citywerenotmuchinterested in choosing between anerastian episcopal andan erastianPresbyterian church. In general thisisan excellent collection of essays, manyof whichareclearly previews of forthcoming monographs. Writtenforthespecialist, thevolume comes fullyequipped withscholarly paraphernalia, a helpfulbibliography, andcopious notes. MICHAEL G. FINLAYSON University ofToronto Laissez-Faire andStateIntervention in Nineteenth-Century Britain.ARTHUR J. TAYLOR. London,Macmillanfor theEconomic HistorySociety; NewYork,FernhillHouse, 1972.PP.79.$•.75 paper. This pamphletis one of the surveys of recentscholarship whichthe Economic HistorySociety hascommissioned for theguidance ofstudents andteachers. It treats thedefinitionandchronology of laissez-faire, contemporary theories of economic policy,the transmission of ideasfrom economists to the generalpublic,and the interventionist or laissez-faire dimensions of nineteenth-century policy withrespect to tariffs,railways, factories, publichealth,education, and the PoorLaws.In so doing,it necessarily assumes a greatdealof prior knowledge. In conclusion, it asks whethertherewasanageof laissez-faire atall. Taylor offersan up-to-datestatement of the debates, usefulthoughbrief summaries ofsuch topics asclassical political economy, administrative reform,andpublic spending, anda scattering of wiseandperceptive comments. Confrontingthequestion ,'Wasthereanageof laissez-faire?' heasks ustodistinguish between intellectual, administrative, political, andsocio-economic history, andhereminds usthatwemust notassume anystrong linksbetween these several kindsof pastevents. Heconcludes thatinmatters of economic policyBritishgovernments were'essentially laissez-faire' because theykeptgovernment expenditure small andbecause, atleast incomparison with prior and later governments,they adhered more or lesscloselyto the non-interference principle. Because somuchhasbeencompressed intososmalla compass, thetextmustbe readwith an attentionwhichisnot at firstapparent.ThoughTaylor'sdistinctions andcategories are sensible andhelpful,somereaders mayconclude thatfurther distinctions arereallyneeded. Forexample, oneshould probably separate thesortof government intervention whichestablishes alegalor administrative frameworkfor privateactivity, withor withoutregulation of particularfirmsor activities, from the sortwhichsets up a government enterprise, perhaps coexisting withprivateenter- ...