principles, its arguments, and above all its language, shall be intelligible to all. It addresses as its real audience the labourers of the field and of the factories, the manufacturers and the merchants, the shopkeepers and the legislators, in a word the whole community; and it is bound to use language which they can recognise to be true. If it shoots over their heads, it has missed its vocation. It may amuse speculative thinkers, but it ceases to be a power and to have value of any importance.

So wild indeed has been this passion for scientific treatment, that Political Economy has been translated into mathematical formulas. Trade and the practice of traders, written out in the language of the differential calculus, is indeed a masterpiece of scientific achievement. But will mathematical figures ever convince a people that they act foolishly in protecting their native industries with high tariffs, or explain why different prices prevail for the same goods in a single town, or teach labourers whether a strike is likely to bring them better wages, or show why two farms of equal fertility pay very different rents?

Не

Of this practical kind is the Political Economy of "The Wealth of Nations." Adam Smith placed his discussions in the very heart of the every-day life of men. dealt with the problems which present themselves to the man of business and the workman. His language every merchant and every trader could understand. His reasonings were of a kind with which all are familiar. The thought that he was founding a science is absent from his economical writings. The questions he took up were the blunderings of great merchants and mighty

states in matters of commerce and finance. His refutations of their ideas were drawn from a common-sense review of their ideas. Every one could follow them. They required no highly-trained minds, no study of elaborate treatises, to be understood. Yet these unscientific discussions have accomplished almost all the great services which Political Economy has done for mankind. Adam Smith has committed errors in detail, for he was human, but they interfered little with the work and the teaching of one of the greatest benefactors of the human race.

His followers have not been contented with the low level on which their great master stood. They have fretted against the walls of the narrow space in which his Political Economy, as they thought, had confined them. They conceived it to be a science to be treated by the scientific method. Their ambition was to make Political Economy take the form of a strict science. Their language took a highly scientific character. Political economists were teachers of a great science. They spoke of economical laws as astronomers speak of the law of gravitation, and chemists of chemical affinity. The doctrines which they developed were held to soar far above the ideas of the exchange, the factory or the workshop. They framed elaborate treatises, of which they required men to become students. Such were not Adam Smith and his ideas: had they reduced him to a mere beginner?

But let us be just. It is not meant here that any conceit or unworthy passion had seized on political economists. What they did was quite natural. The words of Adam Smith had filled them with enthusiasm.

They aspired to give them the grandeur of a scientific form, and thereby to increase their authority and their power to do good. They believed that it would strengthen and spread the enriching truths that were to be dug out of Political Economy. But have they been successful, either as to their building or as to its effects on nations? Is Political Economy in higher honour, more influential over public opinion, more authoritative with Governments and States than it was when "The Wealth of Nations" was almost its sole instrument of teaching?

It is possible to appeal on this point to an authority which is incontestable. The Political Economy Club of London met in May 1876 to celebrate the hundredth anniversary of the publication of "The Wealth of Nations." It is unhappily but too clear that a marked feeling of dissatisfaction with the actual position of Political Economy pervaded the whole gathering. One speaker bewailed "the difference of the process by which Adam Smith collected his inferences, and that by which his followers or commentators have arrived at theirs." The result was "a vast number of fallacies which discredit the science, and a wasted on what has been written."

ment of the principles of Adam

some danger for some time past."

great deal of time "The full developSmith has been in

An appendix to the report of the meeting was published by a committee, and it seems as if it had been their wish to emphasize the dissatisfaction which was felt at the state of economical teaching, and of the influence and authority of Political Economy in the world. They republish an article from the Economist

which was known to be edited by an eminent economical writer, and which speaks of the dulness of modern books of Political Economy, and characterises the teaching of Mr Ricardo-a name associated with the glory of having commenced the scientific treatment— "as beginning in dry principles, and going with unappreciated reasoning to conclusions that are as dry." Political Economy is painted as "declining in credit," as speaking in a lower tone of command than "The Wealth of Nations."

To be accused of contradicting Political Economy is an argument which now carries less weight than it did formerly. The man to whom it is addressed will probably think that what is quoted to him as a law is probably no law at all. He feels that he can obtain. what it is important for him to learn in some easier way by the aid of his natural lights. Thus there arises a marked peculiarity in the view taken by the world of ignorance of Political Economy and ignorance of any real science. The mass of men do not study chemistry or astronomy. They know that this lies beyond their power. But they know also that these sciences possess extremely important information which very closely concerns them, and they are thoroughly willing to follow the rules and prescriptions laid down by astronomers and chemists, without understanding in any way the proofs on which they rest. The dyer and the intelligent farmer do as chemistry bids them. The mariner takes observations of the sun and moon, compares the figures he obtains from his quadrant with their interpretation in his tables, and shapes his course accordingly with safety. It is wholly otherwise

The common

with ignorance of Political Economy. world think that they understand the matters of which it speaks quite as well as the economist, indeed much better. Why should they trouble themselves about advice which has for them no recommendation of superior skill or experience? The protectionist feels no lack of excellent arguments wherewith to refute the free trader. The trades unionist has no misgiving but that his ideas on wages are unanswerable. What need is there for them to plunge into the jargon of economical writings? They do not speak as men of the world speak of things which they handle every day. The final result is that the very service which Political Economy has to render to a people-and it is of the very highest-is lost.

This is a very grave matter. I do not say that the practical truths of Political Economy are less appreciated by the world, have less influence over governments and traders; on the contrary, they are making steady progress in guiding conduct. But it is certain that in adopting any particular commercial view or practice they give less and less as their reason that Mr. Ricardo, or Mr Mill, or Professor Cairnes has advised it. They arrive at their judgments through their own untrained sagacity, and not through the teaching of authorities who must be taken as guides. It is the authority of economical writers which is declining. This diminished weight is the result of their mode of treating the problems of the living world with which Political Economy deals; men take a shorter and a far clearer path through their own observations than through the tangled jungle of scientific refinements.