Зображення сторінки
PDF
ePub

THE

PRINCIPLES

OF

ECONOMICAL PHILOSOPHY.

PRELIMINARY REMARKS.

If there be one race of men more than another to whom the undying gratitude of mankind is pre-eminently due, it is to that illustrious band of thinkers in France, Italy, Great Britain, and Spain, who during the last century founded the science now called Political Economy, or Economics, and brought about that great revolution in opinion which after a long and arduous struggle finally established the doctrines of Free Trade in this country. Lord Macaulay remarks that the two greatest and most salutary social revolutions which have taken place in England, were those which in the thirteenth century put an end to the tyranny of nation over nation, and which a few generations later put an end to the property of man in man; but to these there may be added a third-not less great and not less salutary than the other two-that great revolution in the ideas of the age which abolished for ever the property of one set of men in the industry of others.

But, however deep the debt of gratitude which is due to these immortal thinkers, and however warmly we may acknowledge it, it is given to no men, however illustrious, to arrest the progress of thought, and to impose limits upon science. It is the sacred duty of those in succeeding generations who would aspire to walk in their steps, to sift and examine their doctrines by the light of further experience, even as they examined the doctrines of their predecessors, and to carry on the science from where they left it.

B

It has thus happened that, nearly every science has undergone a complete transformation from the mode in which it was conceived by its founders, and there is, besides, in every science a certain stage at which it becomes necessary to introduce more powerful and refined methods of investigation, more comprehensive forms of expression, and more minute and exact observations.

Highly as we may esteem the great Economists of this and other countries, it is essential to remember the character of the great Economical contests up to recent times. They have been almost entirely destructive. The first Economists found the public mind and the administration infected with an immense mass of rooted prejudices, errors, and abuses. Their first efforts were therefore naturally directed to sweep these away; to beat down and abolish false doctrines of various kinds; to extirpate bad and mischievous laws interfering with the natural order of things; to abolish legislative interference with wages, with prices, with the interest of money, and with the commercial intercourse of nations; to establish, in fact, freedom of contract. And in this Economists of all schools are thoroughly agreed.

The repeal of the Corn Laws in England may be regarded as the close of the destructive era of Economical science in this country. We have now arrived at a new and distinct phase of the science; that, in fact, in which the period of destruction has ended, and that of construction has come.

With the great practical work before them, which it required. three quarters of a century to accomplish in this country, it is not very surprising that Economists have not hitherto given any very close attention to settle the exact foundations of the science. The early treatises are filled with long controversies and discussions which, though indispensably necessary at that time, may now be dismissed in a few lines.

But while Economists of all schools are agreed on what was the destructive portion of their science, when we come to the constructive or positive science, this agreement is at an end. Nothing can be more lamentable or astonishing than the differences of doctrine and the antagonism of Economists on almost every point in the science, so as to create a widely spread impression that there is no such intelligible science at all as Economics. It is well-known that each of the physical sciences which

have attained such great magnitude and extent in modern times, and which have produced such admirable results, have been brought to their present state of perfection by extraordinary labour having been bestowed in ascertaining and settling their first elements, namely, their definitions and axioms, or accurate conceptions and expressions of the objects they treat about, and the general laws which regulate their relations to each other.

But it has not always been so. These wonderful sciences were once in a very different state. The modern plan of teaching a science only in its existing state, no doubt, imparts a vast amount of actual knowledge. But as a mental discipline, or as a matter of education, the History of Science is of enormous value, and, we venture to say, is far too much neglected.

Many persons can "cram" up a considerable amount of actual knowledge, and yet derive but little benefit from it. But to study the History of Ideas on the subject, to understand clearly the principles of the different controversies that have been waged, to comprehend why one set of ideas prevailed over another, is an educational exercise of immense utility, which is almost entirely neglected. Few persons are aware of the wrecks of the fierce controversies which lie buried beneath the calm and placid surface of modern science like those of mighty armaments below the summer sea.

Many persons are apt to think that controversies in Economics are mere logomachy, vain and unprofitable disputes about words, and of no real consequence. They are apt to think that the Physical Sciences treat about things, and Economics only about words. But those who think so, display a total want of knowledge of the History of Science. The early history of all science. is full of controversies about the meaning of words. Many may think that Physical Science being about things there is no difficulty in giving a name to what is seen so readily. This is a lamentable error. On the contrary, it almost invariably happens that names get into a science, and acquire a position in it, before any one can tell what they mean. Thus, the words Momentum, Vis Viva, Uniform Force, Accelerating Force, and several others, acquired a position in Mechanics before any one could tell what they really meant, and all the philosophical world of the day was engaged in the wordy war to settle their

meaning, and obtain true definitions; consequently it is an entire error to suppose that controversies in Physical Science are not about words. On the contrary, it was in the true definitions of words that the whole foundations of the sciences were laid, and it was just because all the great mathematicians of the day so thoroughly understood the supreme importance of ascertaining the true meaning of words, and fought out the meaning of each separate one with such perseverance, that they at length arrived at such an unanimity of agreement, and these controversies have now been almost forgotten. There was a time, then, when what are called the exact sciences had not attained that rank. They were once matters of opinion, and not of demonstration, and they only attained the rank of demonstrative truth, because each separate word and each separate principle was thoroughly discussed and settled.

And why has Economics not yet attained the same rank as Mechanics as an exact science? Because the same care has never yet been given to settle its definitions and axioms. Economics is now, like Mechanics in its early stages, overrun and infested with words whose meaning has never yet been settled on certain principles, and which are never almost used by any two writers in the same sense, nay, even few of the best writers are consistent with themselves. The men who have cultivated Economics are probably of as great natural ability as those who cultivated physical science, of course with the exception of a few unapproachable examples. Why then have they not come to the same unanimity of opinion as their brethren? The simple reason is that they have not adopted the only means that could by any possibility ensure success, namely, a thorough discussion and settlement of the meaning of words. Nay, they have systematically despised it. Now, what the words Momentum, Vis Viva, &c., were to Mechanics in its early stages, that Value, Currency, Capital, &c., are at the present day to Economics.

And it is for this very reason that many suppose that Economics cannot be made an exact science, because the only means that can make it so have been systematically neglected. Many, however, suppose that there is no use for such a thing; matters will go on just the same, they think, for all the disputes. But the same may be said of physical science. A man may be

« НазадПродовжити »