Reviewed by Geofrey T. Mills University of Northern Iowa

This book, an adaptation of Honeyman’s 1977 Ph.D. dissertation at the University of Nottingham, is a combination social and business history of the socioeconomic backgrounds of those who formed the entrepreneurial class in Britain during the teeth of the Industrial Revolution. As the author correctly points out such studies of the social roots of entrepreneurs in England are rare, especially compared to the U.S. case where the Horatio Alger myth has been heavily researched. On these grounds alone this book is a welcome addition to the library of scholarship on the Industrial Revolution. In addition the author has painstakingly researched her subject and included much of her data in two appendices, as well as in the body of the text. The book is well written, organized and easy to read. The bibliography is extensive and the index is complete and easy to use.

In her own words the purpose of this study is to “… test the commonly held belief that positions of industrial power in the 18th and early 19th centuries were open to individuals from diverse social origins, and particularly that unprecedented opportunities existed then for small men to attain the role of the entrepreneur.” In order to test this hypothesis Honeyman looks at three industries between the period c.1750-1830; cotton spinners both early, 1787, and later, 1811; the lace industry; and lead mining in Derbyshire. Cotton was selected because of its reputation for being a breeding ground of self-made men and because it was characterized by a high degree of mechanization early on. By contrast the lace industry had relatively small capital requirements, but went through periods of rapid organizational and technological change. Lead mining saw both large and small operators with wildly varying financial and organizational structures. Furthermore, it was a highly concentrated industry and became a subsidiary source of income for the people in the chief mining areas.

It is difficult to capture, in such a short review, the riches of Honeyman’s data, research and conclusions, but it is possible to make a few general observations. Sir John R. Hicks commented once that the key feature of the Industrial Revolu-tion was the shift from circulating to fixed capital structures. We can see this process in operation here. At some point all three of the industries attracted men of modest and small means because the initial capital outlays were so small. But in many instances the real key to long run success was assess to working capital which was not nearly so easy. Only those individuals who were better connected, either by dint of social background, marriage, social connections, or initial financial success could ensure continuing access to the credit markets. This fact made success, in the long term, a difficult goal for men of small or modest means and, over the entire period under consideration, meant that people from the bottom of the scale made little real progress. To be sure there were some cases of remarkable success, a tiny number but just enough to perpetuate the myth, of small men making it big, however these were by far the exceptions rather than the rule.

Of the three industries which Honeyman investigates in this book the lace industry of the 1820’s appears to have offered the best chances for men of modest or humble origins. This was due to the low capital requirements and the fact that, relatively speaking, continued access to working capital was not as crucial here as in the other two industries. Lead mining held open the finest doors for men from all backgrounds, but was especially treacherous for the individual without capital or connections because of its relatively high barriers to entry, risky returns and need for working capital input. Cotton, both in 1787 and 1811 fell somewhere between lace manufacturers and lead mining. The economic facts of the Industrial Revolution, coupled with the rigidity of British society in this period (which placed a high premium on “connections,” friends and status) all conspired against entrepreneurial success, except in the short run, for all but the best, brightest and luckiest. Despite the vast societal and economic changes in these eight decades there was little real change in industrial leadership. In short, restrictions on upward mobility remained as insur-mountable as they had been in the past. The very small group of men who were successful in the long run stand out, in the stark light of Honeyman’s data, as extremely competent and exceptional. Over the long haul luck had little to do with success.

This book is for the specialist, not the general reader of business history, or even the Industrial Revolution for that matter. It, like all dissertations, is a small slice of pie. I do not intend this to be a criticism, rather a simple fact. Like the small men who made it big Honeyman has poured lots of hard work and creativity into these pages. Meticulously researched, and well written the book fills a gap in our knowledge of the social and economic history of England in the Industrial Revolution. For the specialist this is a rich source of data and inspiration.