Зображення сторінки
PDF
ePub

ela

[ocr errors]

1

ما

tess of modern

aracterises the

... issociated with the

NIGAN sentine treatment

77777pics and going with unap

MONOS that are as dry.”

[graphic]

over tone of command than “The

PT-AWKof contradice Pontel Ecenemy is

who now carries less weight than it did

an to whom it is addressed will pro

El ab ae what is quoted to him as a av is

[ocr errors]

He feels that he can obtain

Extant for him to learn in some easier

aid of his natural lights. Thus there arises Peculiarity in the view taken by the world of ce of Molitical Economy and ignorance of any The mass of men do not study chemistry www They know that this lies beyond their But they know also that these sciences possess exe important information which very closely recar them, and they are thoroughly willing to ew the rules and prescriptions laid down by astroe and chemists, without understanding in any w the proofs on which they rest.

The dyer and intelligent farmer do as chemistry bids them. The mariner takes observations of the sun and moon, ures the figures he obtains from his quadrant

ir interpretation in his tables, and shapes his ccordingly 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.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Political Economy is a

ne scientific treatment is

end prevail. The question

watical Economy a science? & por inquiry must be met: Sessionty?

ble to put a more difficult question.

TONTIGE GWise answer to it has never yet www never will be. Adam Smith's great An Inquiry into the Nature and Wealth of Nations." This description has dition commonly given of Political the science of the production and distribuWealth, Wealth, then, is its subject, what it but what is wealth? Here, again, we have

hard and puzzling as ever. In his first auces Adam Smith seems to explain wealth as “the e and conveniences of life which a nation tally consumes." Vague enough, most assuredly;

the Adam Smith never attempted to frame a culine definition of wealth; he used the word in its Bular sense, as a well-known thing. It never occurred to that he had taken up a science, and must treat

[graphic]

Mr Mill feels quite differently. All through his The regards Political Economy as a science:

4 always aspires to be scientific; yet even at e gives up all scientific definition of wealth.

He distinctly takes as the foundation of his exposition of the principles of Political Economy the popular, unexplored, current definition of wealth. "Every one has a notion," he remarks, "sufficiently correct, of what is meant by wealth." His reason for this sufficiency is remarkable. Enquiries which relate to wealth are in no danger of being confounded with those relating to any other of the great human interests. All know that it is one thing to be rich, another thing to be enlightened, brave, or humane. Mr Mill does not tell us what wealth—the thing he has to explain-is; he bids us ask the first man we meet in the street, what are riches? that is sufficient. Hardly for making a science out of it surely.

After this we can easily understand the feeling of Professor Perry of Williams College, United States. He flings away the word wealth in anger. In his, in many respects, very able work, "The Elements of Political Economy," he declares it to have been the "bane of Political Economy. It is the bog whence most of the mists have arisen which have beclouded the whole subject. From its indefiniteness and the variety of associations it carries along with it in different minds, it is totally unfit for any scientific purpose whatever. It is simply impossible on such an indefinite word as this at the foundation to build up a complete science of Political Economy. Men may think, and talk, and write, and dispute to weariness, but until they come to use words with definiteness and mean the same thing by the same word, they reach comparatively few results, and make but little progress." "Hence," he concludes, "happily there is no need to use this word; " for which

[blocks in formation]
« НазадПродовжити »