A History of Political Economy

第17章

ITALY

ItistoberegrettedthatbutlittleisknowninEnglandandAmericaofthewritingsoftherecentItalianeconomists。Luigi

Cossa’sGuida，whichwastranslatedatthesuggestionofJevons，（8）hasgivenussomenotionofthecharacterand

importanceoftheirlabours。TheurgencyofquestionsoffinanceinItalysinceitspoliticalrenascencehasturnedtheir

researchesforthemostpartintopracticalchannels，andtheyhaveproducednumerousmonographsonstatisticaland

administrativequestions。Buttheyhavealsodealtablywiththegeneraldoctrinesofthescience。CossapronouncesAngelo

Messedaglia（b。1820），professoratPadna，tobetheforemostoftheItalianeconomistsofhistime;hehaswrittenonpublic

loans（1850）andonpopulation（i858），andisregardedasamasterofthesubjectsofmoneyandcredit。HispupilFedele

Lampertico（b。1833）isauthorofmanywritings，amongwhichthemostsystematicandcompleteishisEconomiadeipopoli

edeglistati（18741884）。MarcoMiughetti（18181886），distinguishedasaminister，wasauthor，besidesotherwritings，ofEconomzapubblicaelesueattinenzecollamoraleecoldiritto（1859）。LuigiLuzzatti，alsoknownasanableadministrator，

hasbyseveralpublicationssoughttopreparethewayforreforms。TheSiciliansVitoCusumanoandGiuseppeRiccaSalerno

haveproducedexcellentworks:theformeronthehistoryofpoliticaleconomyintheMiddleAges（1876），andonthe

economicschoolsofGermanyintheirrelationtothesocialquestion（1875）;thelatteronthetheoriesofcapital，wages，and

publicloans（187789）。G。Toniolo，E。Nazzani，（9）andA。Loriahavealsoablydiscussedthetheoriesofrentandprofit，as

wellassomeofthemostimportantpracticalquestionsoftheday。Cossa，towhomweareindebtedformostofthese

particulars，ishimselfauthorofseveralworkswhichhaveestablishedforhimahighreputation，ashisScienzadelleFinanze（1875;4thed。，1887），andhisPrimiElementidiEconomiaPolitica（1875;8thed。，1888），whichlatterhasbeentranslated

intoseveralEuropeanlanguages。

OfgreaterinterestthansuchanimperfectcatalogueofwritersisthefactoftheappearanceinItalyoftheeconomicdualism

towhichwehavereferredascharacterisingourtime。Therealsothetwoschoolstheoldorso—calledorthodoxandthenew

orhistoricalwiththeirrespectivemodifiedforms，arefoundfacetoface。Cossatellsusthattheinstructorsoftheyounger

economistsinnorthernItalywerepubliclydenouncedin1874asGermanists，socialists，andcorruptersoftheItalianyouth。

InreplytothischargeLuzzatti，Lampertico，andScialojaconvokedinMilanthefirstcongressofeconomists（1875）with

theobjectofproclaimingtheirresistancetotheideawhichwassoughttobeimposedonthem"thatthesciencewasborn

anddiedwithAdamSmithandhiscommentators。"M。ÉmiledeLaveleye’sinterestingLettresd’Italie（187879）throwlight

onthestateofeconomicstudiesinthatcountryinstillmorerecentyears。Minghetti，presidingatthebanquetatwhichM。de

LaveleyewasentertainedbyhisItalianbrethren，spokeofthe"twotendencies"whichhadmanifestedthemselves，and

impliedhisowninclinationtothenewviews。CarloFerraris，apupilofWagner，followsthesamedirection。Formal

expositionsanddefencesofthehistoricalmethodhavebeenproducedbyR。Schiattarella（DelmetodoinEconomiaSociale，

1875）andS。CognettideMartiis（Delleattinenzetral’EconomiaSocialeelaStoria，1865）。Alargemeasureofacceptance

hasalsobeengiventothehistoricalmethodinlearnedandjudiciousmonographsbyRiccaSalerno（seeespeciallyhisessayDelmetodoinEcon。Pot。，1878）。LuzzattiandFortiforsometimeeditedaperiodical，theGiornaledegliEconomisti，which

wastheorganofthenewschool，butwhich，whenCossawrote，hadceasedtoappear。Cossahimself，whilstrefusinghis

adhesiontothisschoolonthegroundthatitreducespoliticaleconomytoamerenarrativeoffacts，anobservationwhich，

wemustbepermittedtosay，betraysanentiremisconceptionofitstrueprinciples，admitsthatithasbeenmostusefulin

severalways，andespeciallyashavinggiventhesignalforasalutary，though，ashethinks，anexcessive，reactionagainstthe

doctrinaireexaggerationsoftheoldertheorists。

FRANCE

InFrancethehistoricalschoolhasnotmadesostronganimpression，partly，nodoubt，becausetheextremedoctrinesofthe

Ricardiansystemneverobtainedmuchholdthere。Itwasbyhisrecognitionofitsfreedomfromthoseexaggerationsthat

Jevonswasledtodeclarethat"thetruthiswiththeFrenchschool，"whilsthepronouncedourEnglisheconomiststohave

been"livinginafool’sparadise。"Nationalprejudicemayalsohavecontributedtotheresultreferredto，theordinary

FrenchmanbeingatpresentdisposedtoaskwhetheranygoodthingcancomeoutofGermany。But，aswehaveshown，the

philosophicdoctrinesonwhichthewholeproceedingofthehistoricalschoolisfoundedwerefirstenunciatedbyagreat

Frenchthinker，whosesplendidservicesmostofhisfellow—countrymenseem，asyet，veryinadequatelytoappreciate。

Perhapsanotherdeterminingcauseistobelookedforinofficialinfluences，whichinFrance，bytheiractiononthehigher

education，impedethefreemovementofindependentconviction，aswasseennotablyinthetemporaryéclattheygaveonthe

widerphilosophicstagetotheshalloweclecticismofCousin。Thetendencytothehistoricalpointofviewhasappearedin

France，aselsewhere;butithasshownitselfnotsomuchinmodifyinggeneraldoctrineasinleadingtoamorecarefulstudy

oftheeconomicopinionsandinstitutionsofthepast。

MuchusefulworkhasbeendonebyFrenchmen（withwhomBelgiansmayherebeassociated）inthehistoryofpolitical

economy，regardedeitherasabodyoftheoryorasasystemorseriesofsystemsofpolicy。Blanqui’shistory（183738）is

not，indeed，entitledtoaveryhighrank，butitwasserviceableasafirstgeneraldraft。ThatofVilleneuve—Bargemont（1839）

wasalsointerestinganduseful，aspresentingtheCatholicviewofthedevelopmentandtendenciesofthescience。C。Perin’sLesdoctrineséconomiquesdepuisunsiècle（1880）iswrittenfromthesamepointofview。Anumberofvaluable

monographsonparticularstatesmenorthinkershasalsobeenproducedbyFrenchmen，as，forexample，thatofA。Batbieon

Turgot（TurgotPhilosophe，Économiste，etAdministrateur，1861）;ofA。Neymarckonthesamestatesman（Turgotetses

doctrines，1885）;ofPierreClementonColbert（HistoiredeColbertetdesonAdministration，2ded。，1875）;ofH。

BaudrillartonBodinJ。BodinetsonTemps;TableaudesTheoriespolitiquesetdesIdleséconomiquesau16siècle，1853）’，

ofLéoncedeLavergneonthephysiocrats（LesÉconornistesFrançaisdu18siècle，1870）。ThetreatiseofM。deLaveleye，DelaProprietéetdesesformesprimitives（1874;Eng。trans。byG。R。Marriott，1878），isspeciallyworthyofaction，not

merelyforitsarrayoffactsrespectingtheearlyformsofproperty，butbecauseitco—operatesstronglywiththetendencyof

thenewschooltoregardeachstageofeconomiclifefromtherelativepointofview，asresultingfromanhistoricpast，

harmonisingwiththeentirebodyofcontemporarysocialconditions，andbearinginitsbosomthegermsofafuture，

predeterminedinitsessentialcharacter，thoughmodifiableinitssecondarydispositions。

M。deLaveleyehasdonemuchtocallattentiontothegeneralprinciplesofthehistoricalschool，actinginthiswaymost

usefullyasaninterpreterbetweenGermanyandFrance。Butheappearsinhislatestmanifesto（LesLoisnaturellesetl’objet

del’économiePolitique，1883）toseparatehimselffromthebestmembersofthatschool，andtofallintopositiveerror，

whenherefusestoeconomicsthecharacterofatruescience（ordepartmentofascience）asdistinguishedfromanart，and

deniestheexistenceofeconomiclawsortendenciesindependentofindividualwills。Suchadenialseemstoinvolvethatof

sociallawsgenerally，whichisasingularlyretrogradeattitudeforathinkerofourtimetotakeup，andonewhichcannotbe

excusedsincetheappearanceofthePhilosophicPositive。Theuseofthemetaphysicalphrase"necessarylaws"obscuresthe

question;itsufficestospeakoflawswhichdoinfactprevail。M。deLaveleyereliesonmoralsassupplyingaparallelcase，

wherewedeal，notwithnaturallaws，butwith"imperativeprescriptions，"asiftheseprescriptionsdidnotimply，astheir

basis，observedcoexistencesandsequences，andasiftherewerenosuchthingasmoralevolution。Heseemstobeasfar

fromtherightpointofviewinonedirectionashisopponentsoftheoldschoolinanother。Allthathisargumentshavereally

anytendencytoproveistheproposition，undoubtedlyatrueone，thateconomicfactscannotbeexplainedbyatheorywhich

leavesoutofaccounttheothersocialaspects，andthereforethatourstudiesandexpositionsofeconomicphenomenamust

bekeptincloserelationwiththeconclusionsofthelargerscienceofsociety。

Wecannotdomorethannoticeinageneralwaysomeoftheexpositorytreatisesofwhichtherehasbeenanalmost

continuousseriesfromthetimeofSaydownwards，orindeedfromthedateofGermainGamier’sAbégédesPrincipesde

l’économiePolitique（1796）。ThatofDestuttdeTracyformsaportionofhisÉlémentsd’Ideéologie（1823）。Drozbrought

outespeciallytherelationsofeconomicstomoralsandofwealthtohumanhappiness（ÉconomiePolitique，1829）。

PellegrinoRossi，anItalian，formed，however，asaneconomistbystudiesinSwitzerland，professingthescienceinParis，and

writinginFrench（Coursd’économiePolitique，183854），gaveinclassicformanexpositionofthedoctrinesofSay，

Malthus，andRicardo。MichelChevalier（18061879），speciallyknowninEnglandbyhistract，translatedbyCobden，onthe

fallinthevalueofgold（LaBaissed’Or，1858），givesinhisCoursd’économiePolitique（184550）particularlyvaluable

matteronthemostrecentindustrialphenomena，andonmoneyandtheproductionofthepreciousmetals。HenriBaudrillart，

authorofLesRapportsdelaMoraleetdel’économiePolitique（1860;2ded。，1883），andofHistoireduLuxe（1878），

publishedin1857aManueld’économiePolitique（3ded。，1872），whichCossacallsan"admirablecompendium。"Joseph

Gamier（Traitsdel’économiePolitique，1860;8thed。，1880）insomerespectsfollowsDunoyer。J。G。Courcelle—Senenil，the

translatorofJ。S。Mill，whomProf。F。A。Walkerregardsas"perhapstheablesteconomistwritingintheFrenchlanguage

sinceJ。B。Say，"besidesaTraitéthéoriqueetpratiquedesopérationsdeBanqueandThéoriedesEnterprisesIndustrielles（1856），wroteaTraitéd’économicPolitique（185859;2ded。，1867），whichisheldinmuchesteem。Finally，theGenevese，

AntoineÉliseCherbuliez（d。1869），wasauthorofwhatCossapronouncestobethebesttreatiseonthescienceinthe

Frenchlanguage（PrécisdelaScienceéconomique，1862）。L。Walras，inÉlémentsd’économiePolitiquepure（187477），

andThéorieMathematiquedelaRichesseSociale（1883），hasfollowedtheexampleofCournotinattemptinga

mathematicaltreatmentofthesubject。

ENGLAND

Sacrificingthestrictchronologicalorderofthehistoryofeconomicstodeeperconsiderations，wehavealreadyspokenof

Cairnes，describinghimasthelastoriginalEnglishwriterwhowasanadherentoftheoldschoolpureandsimple。Bothin

methodanddoctrinehewasessentiallyRicardian;thoughprofessingandreallyfeelingprofoundrespectforMill，hewas

disposedtogobehindhimandattachhimselfrathertotheircommonmaster。Mr。Sidgwickisdoubtlessrightinbelieving

thathisLeadingPrinciplesdidmuchtoshake"theuniqueprestigewhichMill’sexpositionhadenjoyedfornearlyhalfa

generation，"andinthis，asinsomeotherways，Cairnesmayhavebeenadissolvingforce，andtendedtowardsradical

change;but，ifheexercisedthisinfluence，hedidsounconsciouslyandinvoluntarily。Manyinfluenceshad，however，for

sometimebeensilentlysappingthefoundationsoftheoldsystem。ThestudentsofComtehadseenthatitsmethodwasan

erroneousone。TheelevatedmoralteachingofCarlylehaddisgustedthebestmindswiththelowmaximsoftheManchester

school。Ruskinhadnotmerelyprotestedagainsttheegoisticspiritoftheprevalentdoctrine，buthadpointedtosomeofits

realweaknessesasascientifictheory。（10）Itbegantobefelt，andevenitswarmestpartisanssometimesadmitted，thatithad

doneallthework，mainlyadestructiveone，ofwhichitwascapable。Cairneshimselfdeclaredthat，whilstmosteducated

peoplebelieveditdoomedtosterilityforthefuture，someenergeticmindsthoughtitlikelytobeapositiveobstructioninthe

wayofusefulreform。MissMartineau，whohadinearlierlifebeenathoroughRicardian，cametothinkthatpolitical

economy，asithadbeenelaboratedbyhercontemporaries，was，strictlyspeaking，noscienceatall，andmustundergosuch

essentialchangethatfuturegenerationswouldowelittletoitbeyondtheestablishmentoftheexistenceofgenerallawsin

onedepartmentofhumanaffairs。（11）Theinstinctiverepugnanceoftheworkingclasseshadcontinued，inspiteoftheefforts

oftheirsuperiorstorecommenditslessonstothemeffortswhichwereperhapsnotunfrequentlydictatedratherbyclass

interestthanbypublicspirit。Allthesymptomsbodedimpendingchange，buttheywerevisibleratheringeneralliterature

andintheatmosphereofsocialopinionthanwithintheeconomiccircle。（12）Butwhenitbecameknownthatagreat

movementhadtakenplace，especiallyinGermany，onnewandmorehopefullines，theEnglisheconomiststhemselvesbegan

torecognizethenecessityofareformandeventofurtheritsadvent。Theprincipalagenciesofthiskind，inmarshallingthe

waytoarenovationofthescience，havebeenthoseofBagehot，Leslie，andJevons，thefirstlimitingthesphereofthe

dominantsystem，whileseekingtoconserveitwithinnarrowerbounds;theseconddirectlyassailingitandsettingupthe

newmethodastherivalanddestinedsuccessoroftheold;andthethirdacknowledgingthecol。lapseofthehithertoreigning

dynasty，proclaimingthenecessityofanalteredregime，andadmittingtheyoungerclaimantasjointpossessorinthefuture。

Thus，inEnglandtoo，thedualismwhichexistsontheContinenthasbeenestablished;andthereisreasontoexpectthathere

morespeedilyanddecisivelythaninFranceorItalythehistoricalschoolwilldisplaceitsantagonist。ItiscertainlyinEngland

nextafterGermanythatthepreachingofthenewviewshasbeenmostvigorouslyandeffectivelybegun。

WalterBagehot（18261877）wasauthorofanexcellentworkontheEnglishmoneymarketandthecircumstanceswhich

havedetermineditspeculiarcharacter（LombardStreet，1873;8thed。，1882），andofseveralmonographsonparticular

monetaryquestions，whichhispracticalexperience，combinedwithhisscientifichabitsofthought，eminentlyfittedhimto

handle。OnthegeneralprinciplesofeconomicshewrotesomehighlyimportantessayscollectedinEconomicStudies（edited

byR。H。Hutton，1880），theobjectofwhichwastoshowthatthetraditionalsystemofpoliticaleconomythesystemof

RicardoandJ。S。Millrestedoncertainfundamentalassumptions，which，insteadofbeinguniversallytrueinfact，wereonly

realisedwithinverynarrowlimitsoftimeandspace。Insteadofbeingapplicabletoallstatesofsociety，itholdsonlyin

relationtothose"inwhichcommercehaslargelydeveloped，andwhereithastakentheformofdevelopment，orsomething

liketheform，whichithastakeninEngland。"Itis"thescienceofbusinesssuchasbusinessisinlargeandtrading

communitiesananalysisofthegreatcommercebywhichEnglandhasbecomerich。"Butmorethanthisitisnot;itwillnot

explaintheeconomiclifeofearliertimes，norevenofothercommunitiesinourowntime;andforthelatterreasonithas

remainedinsular;ithasneverbeenfullyacceptedinothercountriesasithasbeenathome。Itis，infact，asortofready

reckoner，enablingustocalculateroughlywhatwillhappenundergivenconditionsinLombardStreet，ontheStock

Exchange，andinthegreatmarketsoftheworld。Itisa"convenientseriesofdeductionsfromassumedaxiomswhichare

neverquitetrue，whichinmanytimesandcountrieswouldbeutterlyuntrue，butwhicharesufficientlyneartotheprincipal

conditionsofthemodern"English"worldtomakeitusefultoconsiderthembythemselves。"

MillandCairneshadalreadyshownthatthesciencetheytaughtwasahypotheticone，inthesensethatitdealtnotwithreal

butwithimaginarymen"economicmen"whowereconceivedassimply"money—makinganimals。"ButBagehotwent

further:heshowedwhatthosewritersmayhaveindicated，buthadnotclearlybroughtout，（13）thattheworldinwhichthese

menweresupposedtoactisalso"averylimitedandpeculiarworld。"Whatmarksoffthisspecialworld，hetellsus，isthe

promptnessoftransferofcapitalandlabourfromoneemploymenttoanother，asdeterminedbydifferencesinthe

remunerationofthoseseveralemployments—apromptnessabouttheactualexistenceofwhichinthecontemporaryEnglish

worldhefluctuatesagooddeal，butwhichonthewholeherecognizesassubstantiallyrealised。

Bagehotdescribedhimselfas"thelastmanoftheante—Millperiod，"havinglearnedhiseconomicsfromRicardo;andthe

latterwriterheappearstohavetotheendgreatlyover—estimated。Buthelivedlongenoughtogainsomeknowledgeofthe

historicalmethod，andwithithehad"noquarrelbutrathermuchsympathy。""Rightlyconceived，"hesaid，"itisnorivalto

theabstractmethodrightlyconceived。"Wewillnotstoptocriticiseasecondtimetheterm"abstractmethod"hereapplied

tothatoftheoldschool，ortoinsistonthetruththatallscienceisnecessarilyabstract，theonlyquestionthatcanarisebeing

astothejustdegreeofabstraction，or，ingeneral，astotherightconstitutionoftherelationbetweentheabstractandthe

concrete。ItismoreappositetoremarkthatBagehot’sviewofthereconciliationofthetwomethodsisquitedifferentfrom

thatofmost"orthodox"economists。Theycommonlytreatthehistoricalmethodwithasortofpatronisingtolerationas

affordingusefulexemplificationsorillustrationsoftheirtheorems。But，accordingtohim，thetwomethodsareapplicablein

quitedifferentfields。Forwhathecallsthe"abstract"methodhereservesthenarrow，butmostimmediatelyinteresting，

provinceofmodernadvancedindustriallife，andhandsovertothehistoricaltheeconomicphenomenaofallthehumanpast

andalltherestofthehumanpresent。Hehimselfexhibitsmuchcapacityforsuchhistoricalresearch，andinparticularhas

thrownreallightontheless—noticedeconomicandsocialeffectsoftheinstitutionofmoney，andonthecreationofcapitalin

theearlierstagesofsociety。Buthisprincipalefficacyhasbeeninreducing，bytheconsiderationswehavementioned，still

furtherthanhispredecessorshaddone，ourconceptionsoftheworkwhichtheapriorimethodcando。Heinfactdispelled

theideathatitcaneversupplythebranchofgeneralSociologywhichdealswithwealth。Astotherelationsofeconomicsto

theothersidesofSociology，heholdsthatthe"abstract"sciencerightlyignoresthem。Itdoesnotconsiderthedifferencesof

humanwants，orthesocialresultsoftheirseveralgratifications，exceptsofarastheseaffecttheproductionofwealth。Inits

view"apotofbeerandapictureabookofreligionandapackofcardsareequallyworthyofregard。"Itthereforeleaves

thegroundopenforasciencewhichwill，ontheonehand，studywealthasasocialfactinallitssuccessiveformsand

phases，and，ontheother，willregarditinitstruelightasaninstrumentfortheconservationandevolutionmoralaswellas

materialofhumansocieties。

Thoughitwillinvolveaslightdigression，itisdesirableheretonoticeafurtherattenuationofthefunctionsofthedeductive

method，whichiswellpointedoutinMr。Sidgwick’sremarkableworkonpoliticaleconomy。Heobservesthat，whilstJ。S。

Milldeclaresthatthemethodaprioriisthetruemethodofthescience，andthat"ithasbeensounderstoodandtaughtbyall

itsmostdistinguishedteachers，"heyethimselfinthetreatmentofproductionfollowedaninductivemethod（oratleastone

essentiallydifferentfromthedeductive），obtaininghisresultsby"merelyanalysingandsystematisingourcommonempirical

knowledgeofthefactsofindustry。"Toexplainthischaracteristicinconsistency，Mr。SidgwicksuggeststhatMill，inmaking

hisgeneralstatementastomethod，hadincontemplationonlythestaticsofdistributionandexchange。Andinthislatterfield

Mr。Sidgwickholdsthattheapriorimethod，ifitbepursuedwithcaution，ifthesimplifiedpremisesbewelldevisedandthe

conclusions"modifiedbyaroughconjecturalallowance"fortheelementsomittedinthepremises，isnot，forthecaseofa

developedindustrialsociety，"essentiallyfalseormisleading。"Itsconclusionsarehypotheticallyvalid，though"itsutilityasa

meansofinterpretingandexplainingconcretefactsdependsonitsbeingusedwithasfullaknowledgeaspossibleofthe

resultsofobservationandinduction。"Wedonotthinkthisstatementneedbeobjectedto，thoughweshouldprefertoregard

deductionfromhypothesisasausefuloccasionallogicalartifice，and，assuch，perfectlylegitimateinthisasinotherfieldsof

inquiry，ratherthanasthemainformofmethodinanydepartmentofeconomics。Mr。Sidgwick，byhislimitationof

deductionindistributionalquestionsto"astateofthingstakenasthetypetowhichcivilizedsocietygenerally

approximates，"seemstoagreewithBagehotthatfortimesandplaceswhichdonotcorrespondtothistypethehistorical

methodmustbeusedamethodwhich，beitobserved，doesnotexclude，butpositivelyimplies，"reflectiveanalysis"ofthe

facts，andtheirinterpretationfrom"themotivesofhumanagents"aswellasfromotherdeterminingconditions。Inthe

dynamicalstudyofwealthofthechangesinitsdistributionnolessthanitsproductionMr。Sidgwickadmitsthatthemethodapriori"canoccupybutaverysubordinateplace。"Weshouldsaythatherealso，thoughtoalessextent，asalogicalartifice

itmaysometimesbeuseful，thoughthehypothesesassumedoughtnottobethesamethatareadaptedtoamatureindustrial

stage。Buttheessentialorganmustbethehistoricalmethod，studyingcomparativelythedifferentphasesofsocialevolution。

ConnectedwiththetheoryofmodernindustryisonesubjectwhichBagehottreated，thoughonlyinanincidentalway，much

moresatisfactorilythanhispredecessors，namely，thefunctionoftheentrepreneur，whoinMillandCairnesisscarcely

recognizedexceptastheownerofcapital。Itisquitesingularhowlittle，intheLeadingPrinciplesofthelatter，hisactive

co—operationistakenintoaccount。Bagehotobjectstothephrase"wagesofsuperintendence，"commonlyusedtoexpress

his"reward，"assuggestingaltogethererroneousideasofthenatureofhiswork，andwelldescribesthelargeandvaried

rangeofhisactivityandusefulness，andtherarecombinationofgiftsandacquirementswhichgotomakeuptheperfection

ofhisequipment。Itcanscarcelybedoubtedthataforegoneconclusioninfavourofthesystemof（so—called）co—operation

hassometimesledeconomiststokeeptheseimportantconsiderationsinthebackground。Theyhavebeenbroughtintodue

prominenceoflateinthetreatisesofProfs。MarshallandF。A。Walker，who，however，havescarcelymadeclear，and

certainlyhavenotjustified，theprincipleonwhichtheamountoftheremunerationoftheentrepreneurisdetermined。

WehaveseenthatJoneshadinhisdogmaticteachinganticipatedinsomedegreetheattitudeofthenewschool;important

workshadalsobeenproduced，notablybyThomasTookeandWilliamNewmarch（HistoryofPrices，18381857），andby

JamesE。ThoroldRogers（HistoryofAgricultureandPricesinEngland，186682），（14）onthecourseofEnglisheconomic

history。ButthefirstsystematicstatementbyanEnglishwriterofthephilosophicfoundationofthehistoricalmethod，asthe

appropriateorganofeconomicresearch，istobefoundinanessaybyT。E。CliffeLeslie（printedintheDublinUniversity

periodical，Hermathena，1876;sinceincludedinhisEssaysMoralandPolitical，1879）。Thisessaywasthemostimportant

publicationonthelogicalaspectofeconomicsciencewhichhadappearedsinceMill’sessayinhisUnsettledQuestions;

thoughCairneshadexpandedandillustratedtheviewsofMill，hehadreallyaddedlittletotheirsubstance。Leslietakesupa

positiondirectlyopposedtotheirs。Hecriticiseswithmuchforceandvervetheprinciplesandpracticeofthe"orthodox"

school。ThosewhoareacquaintedwithwhathasbeenwrittenonthissubjectbyKniesandotherGermanswillappreciatethe

freshnessandoriginalityofLeslie’streatment。Hepointsoutthelooseandvaguecharacteroftheprincipletowhichthe

classicaleconomistsprofesstotracebackallthephenomenawithwhichtheydealnamely，the"desireofwealth。"This

phrasereallystandsforavarietyofwants，desires，andsentiments，widelydifferentintheirnatureandeconomiceffects，and

undergoingimportantchanges（as，indeed，thecomponentelementsofwealthitselfalsodo）intheseveralsuccessivestages

ofthesocialmovement。Thetruthisthattherearemany"differenteconomicmotors，altruisticaswellasegoistic;andthey

cannotallbelumpedtogetherbysuchacoarsegeneralisation。Theaprioriandpurelydeductivemethodcannotyieldan

explanationofthecauseswhichregulateeitherthenatureortheamountofwealth，norofthevarietiesofdistributionin

differentsocialsystems，as，forexample，inthoseofFranceandEngland。"Thewholeeconomyofeverynationistheresult

ofalongevolutioninwhichtherehasbeenbothcontinuityandchange，andofwhichtheeconomicalsideisonlyaparticular

aspect。Andthelawsofwhichitistheresultmustbesoughtinhistoryandthegenerallawsofsocietyandsocialevolution。"

Theintellectual，moral，legal，political，andeconomicsidesofsocialprogressareindissolublyconnected。Thus，juridicalfacts

relatingtoproperty，occupation，andtrade，thrownupbythesocialmovement，arealsoeconomicfacts。And，more

generally，"theeconomicconditionofEnglish"oranyother"societyatthisdayistheoutcomeoftheentiremovementwhich

hasevolvedthepoliticalconstitution，thestructureofthefamily，theformsofreligion，thelearnedprofessions，theartsand

sciences，thestateofagriculture，manufactures，andcommerce。"Tounderstandexistingeconomicrelationswemusttrace

theirhistoricalevolution;and"thephilosophicalmethodofpoliticaleconomymustbeonewhichexpoundsthatevolution。"

Thisessaywasadistinctchallengeaddressedtotheideasoftheoldschoolonmethod，and，thoughitsconclusionshave

beenprotestedagainst，theargumentsonwhichtheyarefoundedhaveneverbeenanswered。

Withrespecttothedogmaticgeneralisationsofthe"orthodox"economists，Lesliethoughtsomeofthemwerefalse，andall

ofthemrequiredcarefullimitation。Earlyinhiscareerhehadshownthehollownessofthewage—fundtheory，thoughhewas

notthefirsttorepudiateit。（15）Thedoctrineofanaveragerateofwagesandanaveragerateofprofitsherejectedexcept

undertherestrictionsstatedbyAdamSmith，whichimplya"simpleandalmoststationarycondition"oftheindustrialworld。

Hethoughttheglibassumptionofanaveragerateofwages，aswellasofawage—fund，haddonemuchharm"byhidingthe

realratesofwages，therealcauseswhichgovernthem，andtherealsourcesfromwhichwagesproceed。"Thefacts，which

helaboriouslycollected，hefoundtobeeverywhereagainstthetheory。Ineverycountrythereisreally"agreatnumberof

rates;andtherealproblemis，Whatarethecauseswhichproducethesedifferentrates？"Astoprofits，hedeniesthatthere

areanymeansofknowingthegain;andprospectsofalltheinvestmentsofcapital，anddeclaresittobeamerefictionthat

anycapitalistsurveysthewholefield。Bagehot，aswesaw，gaveupthedoctrineofanationallevelofwagesandprofits

exceptinthepeculiarcaseofanindustrialsocietyofthecontemporaryEnglishtype;Lesliedeniesitevenforsuchasociety。