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

with ignorance of Political Economy. The common 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.

The remedy is to remove the cause of the decaying influence of writers of distinguished ability and of great ardour in the study of this subject. Their error must be dispelled there must be a change of method. But is there error? they will reply. Political Economy is a science, and if it is a science, the scientific treatment is the true one and must in the end prevail. The question then must be faced-Is Political Economy a science? To obtain an answer a prior inquiry must be met: What is Political Economy?

It is scarcely possible to put a more difficult question. An accurate and precise answer to it has never yet been given, and never will be. Adam Smith's great work is entitled "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations." This description has led to the definition commonly given of Political Economy, as the science of the production and distribution of wealth. Wealth, then, is its subject, what it speaks of; but what is wealth? Here, again, we have a question as hard and puzzling as ever. In his first sentence, Adam Smith seems to explain wealth as "the necessaries and conveniences of life which a nation annually consumes." Vague enough, most assuredly; but then Adam Smith never attempted to frame a scientific definition of wealth; he used the word in its popular sense, as a well-known thing. It never occurred to him that he had taken up a science, and must treat it as such.

Mr Mill feels quite differently. All through his treatise he regards Political Economy as a science: his method always aspires to be scientific; yet even at starting he 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

.

he substitutes service. In this I am unable to agree with him. Wealth is the word which belongs to the world which Political Economy addresses. The remedy of what the Professor complains of is to abandon the idea of science, and to use the expression wealth in its popular and practical signification. Men do not want scientific utterances from Political Economists, and if they did they would never get them—but practical explanations of every-day operations.

If we pass on from wealth itself to its production, we shall find that we are getting deeper into vagueness and absence of science. By the unanimous admission of all writers those operations which directly produce wealth are outside of Political Economy altogether. Political Economy does not profess to teach the farmer when to sow his seed, what manure to apply, what rotation of crops to adopt, and yet these are the very things which produce, which bring forth, the crop of wheat, which is the wealth desired. Nor does it explain to the makers of iron, or of woollen or cotton cloths, or of ships, how to manufacture these things. These are all the great processes which create wealth, and bring it into being; but obviously Political Economy does not embrace all the arts, or attempt to explain the proper way of producing goods. How then is Political Economy to be called the science of the production of wealth, when that very production of wealth, in its plain and most extensive sense, clearly does not belong to it? A definition of a science sums up its subject: How is it possible to speak of a science when avowedly by far the largest part of the matter included in its definition does not come under its consideration? If Political Economy