it were unimpeded by any other. In this way a nearer approximation is obtained, than would otherwise be practicable, to the real order of human affairs in those departments." 70 Owing to the fact that "the mode of production of all social phenomena is one great case of Intermixture of Laws" 71 economic laws will then represent long-run tendencies.

With this understanding the economist may lay claim to scientific formulæ no less than a physicist. Indeedand casually speaking-he need not even insist upon the egotistic presuppositions which seem to inhere in his premises, for as stated earlier: Desire will reach also for things non-economic, owing to the law of transfer of interest by association. Or in the words of Mill: "It is at least certain that we gradually, through the influence of association, come to desire the means without thinking of the end. . . . As we proceed in the formation of habits, and become accustomed to will a particular act or a particular course of conduct because it is pleasurable, we at last continue to will it whether it is pleasurable or not." "72 For this reason regularity of conduct is possible and economic analysis made less risky, while on the other hand habit or custom loom up as interferences with the rational play of demand and supply.

Mill, it will be seen, labored cautiously in constructing his logic of economics.73 He went step by step from premises to conclusions, and to further conclusions, interlacing his argument at points with enough shrewd and convincing observations from common experience to be sure of a sympathetic hearing. Logically viewed his

70 Ibidem.

71 Ibidem, § 2.

72 Ch. 2, § 4.

78 For an illuminating discussion of the genesis of Mill's Logic see Patten, S. N., in his Development of English Thought, 1899, in which emphasis is put, however, on somewhat different points. See especially pages 324-335.

treatise is the prerequisite, whether frankly espoused or not, of all Utilitarian and Marginal economics. By some the superlative value of the "Logic" was overlooked. Others prefaced their economics with thoughts along similar lines, though much more perfunctorily, and a few were doubtless aware of everything implied in this mighty essay on social methodology. From the historical standpoint Mill furnished a climax almost too grand to be fully understood, while to philosophers the best is of course not in Book Six of the "Logic," but in the Canons of Induction upon which Mill staked his reputation as logician. At all events, Mill alone succeeded in framing a sequence of thought that justified everything committed or omitted by orthodox economists.

This giant, who encompassed the knowledge of his day as few ever have, also conquered unassisted the difficulties that Hume had once before perceived, that economists of the nineteenth were bound to respect, and which the twentieth century may perhaps again scrutinize, if not to solve them anew, certainly to appreciate what they mean for the future of economics.

CHAPTER FIVE

UTILITARIANISM (Continued)

II. PRINCIPLES

The Supremacy of Mill's Logic.-On the foundations laid by the Benthamists, and by John Stuart Mill in his several philosophical and economic works, economics grew into a full-fledged science, functioning independently of other social inquiries and for a long time undisturbed by any protests from outside. Nothing particularly new was added in matters of psychology or methodology. At times the premises were restated and amplifications offered that helped to remind economists of the broader aspects of their discipline; but none of these discussions exerted any marked influence. In the United States H. C. Carey was the first to unite with a general knowledge of natural science a deep interest in philosophy, as well as originality in the treatment of economic problems. No American of the nineteenth century can claim more justly our high regard for labors well done than this zealous champion of monism. Scattered through his many volumes we find ideas on metaphysics, psychology, mathematics, physics and chemistry, biology and anatomy, ethics and logic, sociology and history, in the light of which his economic views should be read if we wish to comprehend him thoroughly. What Comte was to France and J. S. Mill to England, Carey in a way meant to America. He did not despise methodology even though

he dealt with it perfunctorily. Like Smith he learned much from his own peculiar environment, but there was something to start with that was independent of surroundings, nay even perhaps at variance with them.

In France and Germany economics underwent material changes which will soon have to be noted, but so far as the groundwork of its orthodox literature is concerned it was either of English design, or else hardly in evidence. Only after the rise of the German Empire do we find the methodological introductions which have since become so familiar, and then they are devoid of distinct merits. What the Germans added on this topic belongs either to Historism or to Marginism. For the rest, the developments pertain to principles, and not to premises.

Neither can anything more complimentary be said of French or Italian economics, until we reach the period of Marginism. Indeed, in England, too, Mill occupies a unique position, since no student of economic methodology ever approached the profundity of his own analysis or the thoroughness of his treatment. Characteristic enough that neither Malthus nor Ricardo nor Senior concerned themselves seriously with the presuppositions of their science, and that later writers either restated the bulk of Mill's argument-in so far as the problem was appreciated at all—or else took to the Historical viewpoint, whose logic certainly was not that of the Utilitarians! Bagehot has secured for himself an honorable place in the field, but did not complete his investigations. Henry Sidgwick, like Fawcett and Cairnes, gave prestige to the theory of economics, but apparently used his originality chiefly for the "Methods of Ethics," Utilitarianism as mere ethics being weighed again and found wanting. Macleod adds nothing new, nor can it be said of Cairnes' "Character and Logical Method of Political Economy"

that an advance was made over the position of J. S. Mill. In fact, from the very nature of those lectures we might perhaps expect them to be general and fragmentary rather than exhaustive. Still later comes Marshall and Keynes, whose "Scope and Method of Political Economy," 1891, went more carefully into methodological questions than any work except Mill's. Yet in both these cases our admiration will be mingled with regret, for again the new is either lacking entirely, as in Marshall, or it relates simply to such discussions as had been raised by Historism and settled there with even greater success. Broadly speaking then Mill's "Logic" has neither peer nor successor in point of development within Utilitarian economics. Progress was made in details of doctrine, i. e., principles, but not in matters of logic where the premises were most naturally put to a test.

The Field of Economics.-Turning now to these leading principles which directly or indirectly were based on the premises so far considered.

To begin with, Utilitarian economics almost from the start restricted its investigations to the facts of exchange, i. e., monetary measurements. The psychology and logic used did not, in fact, leave any choice, though inconsistently an objection was raised by some writers. Mill had shown why economic motives might be set aside as raw material for a new science of which Adam Smith was not altogether certain. The Benthamites had spread the gospel of hedonism as a key to production and pricing. Price was already understood to represent a ratio of exchange without which neither income could be explained nor the identity of physical and social laws of nature be adequately proven. If Mill was right, clearly economics was a science of exchanges; and so Archbishop Whately declared ere long.