counsels are entitled. It gives instruction on wealth; but wealth is not the highest object, much less the one supreme end of human life. Wealth is only an instrument; its value consists in what it effects for its possessor. It provides him with satisfactions and enjoyments; the nature and quality of those enjoyments are the criterion of its worth. A far nobler and keener gratification may be had from the reading of a book, which a little wealth could have procured, than from a multitude of mere luxuries. There are better things than to be rich: there are others, by the side of which riches ought to count as nothing. Men have sacrificed their wealth and their lives rather than perform a false, dishonouring, or irreligious action, and their memory has been hallowed with enduring respect. Hence that knowledge respecting wealth which Political Economy proclaims can claim that rank only which belongs to one single department of human life. Political Economy must be regarded as making, so to speak, a report on the appropriate methods for obtaining a single limited object. It gives that report to the mind of a being who receives similar reports from other portions of his nature. It is for him, for the whole man, to judge how far he will put in practice the advice given. By the laws of his mental and moral constitution, he is not only urged but bound to erect a tribunal within himself which shall judge of the relative rights to command attached to different ends. Political Economy may be able to show that a society constructed on Communistic principles will be poorer than one founded on unrestricted individual liberty; the Communist is authorised to reply that this is a question which falls under the jurisdiction "was in the habit of saying in the course of his writings -men do so and so, which means in his way of writing, men do so and so, and men will do so and so to the end of the chapter." "The test of science," he tells us, “is prevision or prediction. By foretelling human actions and conduct with certainty, Adam Smith created a deductive and demonstrative science, now called Political Economy." But where is a single certain prediction of human conduct to be found in his writings which proves him to have been the creator of a science? Men are presumed to be keen in the pursuit of riches, and to be sure to act always for their interest, but, unhappily, they are found not to do so and so, even here, to the end of the chapter. They rush into ruinous wars from passion. They know that the way to be rich is to labour, and they prefer idleness. Whole nations like better to bask in the sun than to take the trouble to accumulate wealth. They are well aware that the tradesmen with whom they deal oppress them with unjust prices; they will not be at the pains to seek out the shops where good commodities are to be had at fair rates, thus making the boasted economical principle of competition to be anything but universal. Saving they would confess to be the foundation of wealth and the security for old age; they spend all they can on drink. Governments and peoples have been taught the reasonableness and profitableness of Free Trade: they persist in Protection. "The Wealth of Nations" was written to paint the folly of the Mercantile Theory, and few educated men in England would like to confess their belief in it; but it lives on nevertheless with indestructible vitality. It reigns supreme in all the Stock Exchanges of the world, and every merchant and shopkeeper loves to hear that exports exceed imports. A child can lead a horse to the water, Archbishop Whately was fond of saying; but twenty men cannot make him drink. Adam Smith laid down clear principles, but he could induce only a few men and governments to act upon them. Were he alive now he would be ruined as a man of science by the "will do so and so to the end of the chapter' theory. 2. But, secondly, we are told that Adam Smith built up not only a demonstrative science of human conduct, but also a deductive science of argued-out and correlated doctrine. But where shall we find such a standard of teaching throughout the whole range of Political Economy? Will it be the greatest of the truths of Free Trade? But Free Trade is not the child of scientific skill upon the deductive method. The doctrine of Free Trade is only the explanation and enforcement against selfish perverseness of a very common practice, known and observed by all men: to the women the needle work, to the men the lifting of weights. Whoever regulates his household differently, and compels the needle work and the muscular effort to be distributed equally amongst the men and the women, is a fool. Let Norfolk grow our barley and Sheffield our knives; what sane man would dream of wishing it otherwise? Free Trade is nothing but this-the widest application of this practice. But is this a revelation won by the intellectual elaboration of a deductive process? So again with the Mercantile Theory. Money is but a tool, a machine devised for a certain definite work; a tool exchanging pro Who ever perty, as a common cart transfers weights. preached that a nation could not have too many carts or too many ploughs? that it was always good to procure carts without end? Did it require the voice of a grand deductive science to make men perceive the nature and necessary limitation of tools? There may be, nay are, multitudes of people who are not aware that money is nothing but a tool-to make known this fact is all that is really needed to kill the Mercantile Theory. A little intelligent observation is perfectly sufficient without calling in science. The Malthusian theory again is often appealed to as a splendid product of deductive science; but what is the essence of this theory but the well-known fact that human beings, like all other animals, have a power of multiplying faster than their food, and that if they do so multiply very unpleasant consequences must arise? Again we encounter here only a simple act of intelligent perception. Malthus has only insisted on and illustrated this fact, mainly against a very current theory that God does not send children without providing for them. The fine words about arithmetical and geometrical ratios are merely idle writing. So also is it with one of the most all-prevailing rules of Political Economy— the law of supply and demand. As a practical fact, it has been known to all mankind ever since there has been trade. It is no novelty to men and nations who have never heard that there is such a thing as Political Economy, that if more goods are made than are wanted, they will be sold at a lower price, or not sold at all; and that on the other hand, if bread is scarce from a bad harvest or in a besieged town, it will become exces sively dear. Equally familiar is the truth to untutored minds that if a man wishes to have a thing he must pay for the making of it. There is little else in the economical discussions of supply and demand but expansions and applications of these very obvious and instinctively observed facts. To call them scientific principles is nothing but inflated language. In all these instances the true nature of Political Economy stands out clear. It is the application of common sense to familiar processes. It explains their nature and manner of working. It analyses and thinks out practices which are universal, except when thwarted by artificial theory. The information which it acquires by observation and analysis, it puts together in a systematic form. Its teaching is contained in a body of methodical knowledge, which presents to the inquirer the chief facts and the real essence of these natural processes; he is made to understand them, each singly for itself, and all of them together as a connected whole. The production and distribution of wealth are operations of the widest range, and are made up of many and often complicated parts, but they are capable of being grouped and viewed as a united whole. But there is no strict science in all this, no deduction, step by step, from a few first principles, nor any construction of economical laws by induction. I can find no true economical law in Political Economy, unless such truths as that a man must labour if he means to keep himself alive, or that he must prepare beforehand seed and tools if he desires to obtain a supply of corn, are to be invested with the dignified title of scientific laws. What are called economic laws by most writers are mere |