..: known to be edited by an eminent econowr, and which speaks of the dulness of modern

of Political Economy, and characterises the aching of Mr Ricardo-a name associated with the ory 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.

le to put a more difficult question. ind precise answer to it has never yet gever will be. Adam Smith's great

enfisled An Inquiry into the Nature and se of the Wealth of Nations." This description has ok to the deamition commonly given of Political Economy, the selence of the production and distribuConor the 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 Ritar sense, as a well-known thing. It never occurred him that he had taken up a science, and must treat it as such,

Mill feels quite differently. All through his Le regards Political Economy as a science: d 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