the first notice of the Wealth of Nations in Parliament, so far as he knew, was in 1783, and that it was mentioned several times there between that date and the close of the century. After some intervening remarks he adds: "Well may it be said of Adam Smith, and that too without fear of contradiction, that this solitary Scotchman has, by the publication of one single work, contributed more towards the happiness of man than has been effected by the united abilities of all the statesmen and legislators of whom history has presented an authentic account." Even Bagehot says: "The life of almost every one in Englandperhaps of every one is different and better in consequence of it. No other form of political philosophy has ever had one thousandth part of the influence on us."

Englishmen delight to call Adam Smith the Father of Political Economy. While it is possible that this title belongs rather to Turgot than to him, there is no doubt that the Wealth of Nations has become the corner stone of economic science. Those who went before, prepared the way for him; those who came after, carried on his work.

Critical Estimate of Smith's Wealth of Nations. An eminent follower of Adam Smith, N. W. Senior, summed up his work in the following terms: "The inquiry which Quesnay originated was pursued, and with still greater success, by Adam Smith. Smith was superior to Quesnay, and perhaps to every writer since the times of Aristotle, in the extent and accuracy of his knowledge. He was, on the whole, as original a thinker as Quesnay, without being equally subject to the common defect of original thinkers, a tendency to push his favorite theories to extremes; and in the far greater freedom then allowed to industry in Great Britain than in France, and in the greater publicity with us of the government receipt and expenditure, he possessed far greater advantages as an observer . . . assisted by a style unequalled in its attractiveness, he has almost completely superseded the labours of his predecessors." 1

Though Smith's thought is justly praised for its moderation,

1 Lectures on Political Economy, 1852, p. 5.

and his style for its attractiveness, the careful reader notices not a few careless, ill-expressed utterances and many inconsistencies. Universal rules are given absolutely, only to be followed by important deviations; now a factor is cause, now effect, etc. In spite of his moderation, relatively to both predecessors and followers, too, an undue absolutism somewhat mars his reasoning. To this extent Senior's estimate must be modified. But on the whole it is eminently just.

With more specific reference to Smith's contribution to the material of economic thought, another well-known follower of his has said: "In adopting the discoveries of others, he has made them his own; he has demonstrated the truth of principles on which his predecessors had, in most cases, stumbled by chance; has separated them from the errors by which they were previously encumbered; has traced their remote consequences, and pointed out their limitations; has shown their practical importance and real value - their mutual dependence and relation; and has reduced them into a consistent, harmonious, and beautiful system.

To part of this statement of the case decided exception is to be taken, while much more is to be said. In some instances, as in the theory of value and rent, Smith does not trace remote consequences, nor does he show their dependence and relation. Certainly there is much lacking on the score of harmony and consistency.

Of the host of adverse criticisms of Smith's reasoning the following seem to be the most fundamentally important:—

I. His philosophy was over-individualistic. Its tendency was so to restrict the sphere of government activity-in spite of the particular exceptions he made as to be the basis for harmful conclusions. This was in part the fruit of a negativism, which, though much less marked than that of the Physiocrats, was deep seated.

II. He was at bottom an essentially materialistic thinker. As Ingram says, " He does not keep in view the moral destination of our race, nor regard wealth as a means to the higher ends of life,

1 M'Culloch, Discourse on the Science of Political Economy, Edinburgh, 1825, p. 56.

and thus incurs, not altogether unjustly, the charge of materialism."

III. These traits were made more harmful by his absolutism of theory. In spite of bits of historical treatment, he lacked the concept of relativity, and was led to state his doctrines too narrowly and in too sweeping a fashion.

To be noted as particular evidence of concrete error, is his treatment of the productivity of different kinds of labor, and of the relation of rent to price.

Smith's chief services are mostly suggested in the above quotations. His breadth of view and catholicity were notable. Taking in most of what was best in English and French thought, he gave Political Economy a definition and distinct content that it had lacked. He brought labor and capital into prominence along with the land factor emphasized by the Physiocrats. And, imperfect as it was, his discussion of value was a marked advance over that of any predecessor.

Before Smith, economic investigation was taken up with the producer of wealth. The producer was the starting point. While dealing largely with production, Smith started from the standpoint of the consumer: "Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production, and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to, only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer." Though sometimes overlooked or unexpressed, this has been the ultimate standpoint of the pure English school ever since.

There are surprisingly few important economic ideas of which there is not some trace in the Wealth of Nations. For example, there is the theory of population. This idea Smith suggests, but he does not work it out. The great problem of political economy has been found in the distribution of wealth, and but little progress can be made in its solution until inquiry is made with regard to the present, as well as probable future, population among which wealth is to be divided, and also the effects on its numbers to be expected from this or that distribution of wealth. Both Turgot and Adam Smith mentioned incidentally the effects of the

1 Wealth of Nations, Bk. IV, Chap. VIII (Cannan's ed., p. 159).

increase of population on the wages of the laboring classes; but they did not bring the matter forward prominently, nor did they make any attempt at a discovery and scientific treatment of laws governing such increase. This work was reserved for Malthus.

II. THE EARLIER FOLLOWERS

As already indicated, the Wealth of Nations gained a rapid ascendency and the dominant schools of economists in England and France soon came to call themselves the followers of Adam Smith. In Germany, too, Smith took the lead, though here his influence was not so quickly felt and a considerable degree of independence was early apparent. The Germans called this whole tendency Smithianismus. It is with these earlier followers of Smith's doctrines, in the late years of the eighteenth century and down to 1850, that this part of the work is to deal.

I. PESSIMISTIC TENDENCIES

It has been suggested that there were both optimistic and pessimistic tendencies embedded in the Wealth of Nations. Thus the idea that through self-interest men are led as by a divine hand so to act as to insure the best economic results for society is taught by Smith, and has been at the bottom of a large part of the optimism in economic thought. On the other hand, the doctrine that the interests of various classes clash with one another, and with those of society, may lead to pessimistic conclusions, though not necessarily. Moreover, in believing that every nation must at some time reach a "stationary state," Smith profoundly affected succeeding economic thinkers and opened the door for many pessimistic doctrines.

Accordingly in what follows two groups have been distinguished among the general adherents of Smith's teachings: those who fell in with the optimistic tendencies; and those who developed the pessimistic side. Perhaps one's views may be colorless as to optimism and pessimism. Certainly some of Smith's followers do not fall clearly in either group, and a third category has been retained for such.

Probably the pessimistic tendencies were developed earliest; and such tendencies appear in the thought of one of his first English followers, Malthus.