hedistinctlyaffirmsthatin
　　politicaleconomythereisnoroomforinductionatall，"theeconomiststartingwithaknowledgeofultimatecauses，"and
　　beingthus，"attheoutsetofhisenterprise，atthepositionwhichthephysicistonlyattainsafteragesoflaboriousresearch。"
　　Hedoesnot，indeed，seemtobeadvancedbeyondthepointofviewofSenior，whoprofessedtodeducealleconomictruth
　　fromfourelementarypropositions。WhilstMillinhisLogicrepresentsverificationasanessentialpartoftheproccssof
　　demonstrationofeconomiclaws，Cairnesholdsthat，asthey"arenotassertionsrespectingthecharacterorsequenceof
　　phenomena"（thoughwhatelsecanascientificlawbe？），"theycanneitherbeestablishednorrefutedbystatisticalor
　　documentaryevidence。"Apropositionwhichaffirmsnothingrespectingphenomenacannotbecontrolledbybeing
　　confrontedwithphenomena。Notwithstandingtheunquestionableabilityofhisbook，itappearstomark，insomerespects，a
　　retrogressioninmethodology，andcanforthefuturepossessonlyanhistoricalinterest。
　　Regardedinthatlight，thelaboursofMillandCairnesonthemethodofthescience，thoughintrinsicallyunsound，hadan
　　importantnegativeeffect。Theyletdowntheoldpoliticaleconomyfromitstraditionalposition，andreduceditsextravagant
　　pretensionsbytwomodificationsofcommonlyacceptedviews。First，whilstRicardohadneverdoubtedthatinallhis
　　reasoningshewasdealingwithhumanbeingsastheyactuallyexist，theyshowedthatthescience，asheconceivedit，mustbe
　　regardedasapurelyhypotheticone，Itsdeductionsarebasedonunreal，oratleastone—sided，assumptions，themost
　　essentialofwhichisthatoftheexistenceoftheso—called"economicman"，abeingwhoisinfluencedbytwomotivesonly，
　　thatofacquiringwealthandthatofavoidingexertion;andonlysofarasthepremisesframedonthisconceptioncorrespond
　　withfactcantheconclusionsbedependedoninpractice。Seniorinvainprotestedagainstsuchaviewofthescience，which，
　　ashesaw，compromiseditssocialefficacy，。whilstTorrens，whohadpreviouslycombatedthedoctrinesofRicardo，hailed
　　Mill’snewpresentationofpoliticaleconomyasenablinghim，whilstinonesenserejectingthosedoctrines，inanothersense
　　toacceptthem。Secondly，besideeconomicscience，ithadoftenbeensaid，standsaneconomicart，——theformerascertaining
　　truths。respectingthelawsofeconomicphenomena，thelatterprescribingtherightkindofeconomicaction;andmanyhad
　　assumedthat，theformerbeinggiven，thelatterisalsoinourpossession—that，infact，wehaveonlytoconverttheoremsinto
　　precepts，andtheworkisdone。ButMillandCairnesmadeitplainthatthisstatementcouldnotbeaccepted，thatactioncan
　　nomoreintheeconomicworldthaninanyotherprovinceoflifeberegulatedbyconsiderationsborrowedfromone
　　departmentofthingsonly;thateconomicscansuggestideaswhicharetobekeptinview，butthat，standingalone，itcannot
　　directconduct——anofficeforwhichawiderprospectofhumanaffairsisrequired。Thismatterisbestelucidatedbya
　　referencetoComte’sclassification，orratherhierarchicalarrangement，ofthesciences。Beginningwiththeleastcomplex，
　　mathematics，werisesuccessivelytoastronomy，physics，chemistry，thencetobiology，andfromitagaintosociology。Inthe
　　courseofthisascentwecomeuponallthegreatlawswhichregulatethephenomenaoftheinorganicworld，oforganised
　　beings，andofsociety。Afurtherstep，however，remainstobetaken—namely，tomorals，。andatthispointtheprovincesof
　　theoryandpracticetendtocoincide，becauseeveryelementofconducthastobeconsideredinrelationtothegeneralgood。
　　Inthefinalsynthesisallthepreviousanalyseshavetobeusedasinstrumental，inordertodeterminehoweveryrealquality
　　ofthingsormenmaybemadetoconvergetothewelfareofHumanity。
　　Cairnes’smostimportanteconomicpublicationwashislast，entitledSomeLeadingPrinciplesofPoliticalEconomynewly
　　Expounded，1874。Inthiswork，whichdoesnotprofesstobeacompletetreatiseonthescience，hecriticisesandemendsthe
　　statementswhichprecedingwritershadgivenofsomeofitsprincipaldoctrines，andtreatselaboratelyofthelimitationswith
　　whichtheyaretobeunderstood，andtheexceptionstothemwhichmaybeproducedbyspecialcircumstances。Whilst
　　markedbygreatability，itaffordsevidenceofwhathasbeenjustlyobservedasaweaknessinCairnes’smentalconstitution——his"deficiencyinintellectualsympathy，"andconsequentfrequentinabilitytoseemorethanonesideofatruth。
　　Thethreedivisionsofthebookrelaterespectivelyto（1）value，（2）labourandcapital，and（3）internationaltrade，Inthefirst
　　hebeginsbyelucidatingthemeaningoftheword"value，"andunderthisheadcontrovertstheviewofJevonsthatthe
　　exchangevalueofanythingdependsentirelyonitsutility，without，perhaps，distinctlyapprehendingwhatJevonsmeantby
　　thisproposition。Onsupplyanddemandheshows，asSayhaddonebefore，thatthese，regardedasaggregates，arenot
　　independent，butstrictlyconnectedandmutuallydependentphenomena—identical，indeed，underasystemofbarter，but
　　underamoneysystem，conceivableasdistinct，Supplyanddemandwithrespecttoparticularcommoditiesmustbe
　　understoodtomeansupplyanddemandatagivenprice;andthusweareintroducedtotheideasofmarketpriceandnormal
　　price（as，followingCherbuliez，hetermswhatSmithlesshappilycallednaturalprice）。Normalpriceagainleadstothe
　　considerationofcostofproduction，andhere，againstMillandothers，hedeniesthatprofitandwagesenterintocostof
　　production;inotherwords，heassertswhatSenior（whomhedoesnotname）hadsaidbeforehim，thoughhehadnot
　　consistentlycarriedoutthenomenclature，thatcostofproductionisthesumoflabourandabstinencenecessaryto
　　production，wagsandprofitsbeingtheremunerationofsacrificeandnotelementsofit。But，itmaywellbeasked，Howcan
　　anamountoflabourbeaddedtoanamountofabstinence？Mustnotwagesandprofitsbetakenas"measuresofcost"？By
　　adheringtotheconceptionof，"sacrifice"heexposestheemptinessoftheassertionthat"dearlabouristhegreatobstacleto
　　theextensionofBritishtrade"——asentenceinwhich"Britishtrade"meanscapitalists’profits。Atthispointweare
　　introducedtoadoctrinenowfirstelaborated，thoughthereareindicationsofitinMill，ofwhosetheoryofinternational
　　valuesitisinfactanextension。Inforeigntradecostofproduction，inCairnes’ssense，doesnotregulatevalues，becauseit
　　cannotperformthatfunctionexceptunderaregimeofeffectivecompetition，andbetweendifferentcountrieseffective
　　competitiondoesnotexist。But，Cairnesasks，towhatextentdoesitexistindomesticindustries？Sofarascapitalis
　　concerned，hethinkstheconditionissufficientlyfulfilledoverthewholefield——aposition，letitbesaidinpassing，whichhe
　　doesnotseemtomakeout，ifweconsiderthepracticalimmobilityofmostinvested，asdistinctfromdisposable，capital。But
　　inthecaseoflabourtherequisitecompetitiontakesplaceonlywithincertainsocial，orratherindustrial，strata。Theworldof
　　industrymaybedividedintoaseriesofsuperposedgroups，andthesegroupsarepractically:"non—competing，"the
　　disposablelabourinanyoneofthembeingrarelycapableofchoosingitsfieldinahigher。（57）Thelawthatcostofproduction
　　determinespricecannot，therefore，beabsolutelystatedrespectingdomesticanymorethanrespectinginternational
　　exchange，。asitfailsforthelatteruniversally，soitfailsfortheformerasbetweennon—competinggroups。Thelawthatholds
　　betweentheseissimilartothatgoverninginternationalvalues，whichmaybecalledtheequationofreciprocaldemand。Such
　　astateofrelativepriceswillestablishitselfamongsttheproductsofthesegroupsasshallenablethatportionoftheproducts
　　ofeachgroupwhichisappliedtothepurchaseoftheproductsofallothergroupstodischargeitsliabilitiestowardsthose
　　othergroups。Thereciprocaldemandofthegroupsdeterminesthe"averagerelativelevel"ofpriceswithineachgroup;
　　whilstcostofproductionregulatesthedistributionofpriceamongtheindividualproductsofeachgroupThistheoremis
　　perhapsofnogreatpracticalvalue;butthetendencyofthewholeinvestigationistoattenuatetheimportanceofcostof
　　productionasaregulatorofnormalprice，andsotoshowthatyetanotheroftheaccepteddoctrinesofthesciencehadbeen
　　propoundedintoorigidandabsoluteaform。Astomarketprice，theformulabywhichMillhaddefineditasthepricewhich
　　equalisesdemandandsupplyCairnesshowstobeanidenticalproposition，andhedefinesitasthepricewhichmost
　　advantageouslyadjuststheexistingsupplytotheexistingdemandpendingthecomingforwardoffreshsuppliesfromthe
　　sourcesofproduction。
　　Hissecondpartischieflyremarkableforhisdefenceofwhatisknownasthewagesfunddoctrine，towhichweadverted
　　whenspeakingofSenior。（58）Millhadgivenupthisdoctrine，havingbeenconvincedbyThorntonthatitwaserroneous;but
　　Cairnesrefusedtofollowhisleader，who，ashebelieves，oughtnottohavebeenconvinced。（59）Afterhavinggivenwhatis
　　certainlyafallaciousreplytoLonge’scriticismoftheexpression"averagerateofwages，"heproceedstovindicatethe
　　doctrineinquestionbytheconsiderationthattheamountofanation’swealthdevotedatanytietothepaymentofwages——if
　　thecharacterofthenationalindustriesandthemethodsofproductionemployedremainthesame——isinadefiniterelationto
　　theamountofitsgeneralcapital;thelatterbeinggiven，theformerisalsogiven。Inillustratinghisviewofthesubject，he
　　insistsontheprinciple（trueinthemain，buttooabsolutelyformulatedbyMill）that"demandforcommoditiesisnot
　　demandforlabour，"Itisnotnecessaryheretofollowhisinvestigation，forhisreasoninghasnotsatisfiedhissuccessors，
　　withtheexceptionofFawcett，andthequestionofwagesisnowcommonlytreatedwithoutreferencetoasupposed
　　determinatewagesfund，Cairnesnextstudiestrades—unionisminrelationtowages，andarrivesinsubstanceattheconclusion
　　thattheonlywayinwhichitcanaffecttheirrateisbyacceleratinganadvancewhichmustultimatelyhavetakenplace
　　independentlyofitsaction。HealsotakesoccasiontorefuteMr。（nowLord）Brassey’ssupposedlawofauniformcostof
　　labourineverypartoftheworld。Turningtoconsiderthematerialprospectsoftheworkingclasses，heexaminesthe
　　questionofthechangeswhichmaybeexpectedintheamountandpartitionofthefundoutgfwhichabstinenceandlabour
　　areremunerated。Hehereenunciatestheprinciple（whichhadbeen，however，statedbeforehimbyRicardoandSenior）that
　　theincreasedproductivenessofindustrywillnotaffecteitherprofitorwagesunlessitcheapenthecommoditieswhichthe
　　labourerconsumes。Theselatter。beingmostlycommoditiesofwhichrawproduceistheonlyorprincipalelement，theircost
　　ofproduction，notwithstandingimprovementsinknowledgeandart，willincreaseunlessthenumbersofthelabouringclass
　　besteadilykeptincheck;andhencethepossibilityofelevatingtheconditionofthelabourerisconfinedwithinverynarrow
　　limits，ifhecontinuestobealaboureronly。Theconditionofanysubstantialandpermanentimprovementinhislotisthathe
　　shouldceasetobeamerelabourer——thatprofitsshouldbebroughttoreinforcethewagesfund，whichhasatendency，inthe
　　courseofindustrialprogress，todeclinerelativelytothegeneralcapitalofacountry。AndhenceCairnes——abandoningthe
　　purelytheoreticattitudewhichheelsewhererepresentsastheonlyproperonefortheeconomist—recommendsthesystemof
　　so—calledco—operation（thatis，infact，theabolitionofthelargecapitalist）asofferingtotheworkingclasses"thesolemeans
　　ofescapefromaharshandhopelessdestiny，"andputsasiderathercontemptuouslytheoppositionofthePositiviststothis
　　solution，whichyetmanybesidesthePositivists，as，forexample，LeslieandF，A。Walker，regardaschimerical。
　　ThethirdpartisdevotedmainlytoanexpositionofRicardo’sdoctrineoftheconditionsofinternationaltradeandMill’s
　　theoryofinternationalvalues。TheformerCairnesmodifiesbyintroducinghisideaofthepartialinfluenceofreciprocal
　　demand，asdistinguishedfromcostofproduction，ontheregulationofdomesticprices，andfoundsonthisrectificationan
　　interestingaccountofthatconnectionbetweenthewagesprevailinginacountryandthecharacterandcourseofitsexternal
　　trade。HeemendsMill’sstatement，whichrepresentedtheproduceofacountryasexchangingforthatofothercountriesat
　　suchvalues"asarerequiredinorderthatthewholeofherexportsmayexactlypayforthewholeofherimports"by
　　substitutingforthelatterphrasetheconditionthateachcountryshouldbymeansofherexportsdischargeallherforeign
　　liabilities—inotherwords，byintroducingtheconsiderationofthebalanceofdebts。Thisideawasnotnew。ithadbeen
　　indicatedbyJohnLeslieFosterasearlyas1804，（60）andwastouchedonbyMillhimself;butCairnesexpoundsitwell;andit
　　isimportantasclearingawaycommonmisconceptions，andsometimesremovinggroundlessalarms。（61）Passingtothe
　　questionoffreetrade，hedisposesofsomeoften—repeatedprotectionistarguments，andinparticularrefutestheAmerican
　　allegationoftheinabilityofthehighly—paidlabourofthatcountrytocompetewiththe"pauperlabour"ofEurope。Heisnot
　　sosuccessfulinmeetingthe"politicalargument，"foundedontheadmittedimportanceforcivilizationofdeveloping
　　diversifiednationalindustries;andhemeetsonlybyoneofthehighlyquestionablecommonplacesofthedoctrinaire
　　economistsMill’spropositionthatprotectionmayfosternascentindustriesreallyadaptedtoacountrytilltheyhavestruck
　　rootandareabletoendurethestressofforeigncompetition。
　　WehavedweltatsomelengthonthisworkofCairnes，notonlybecauseitpresentsthelatestiormsofseveralaccepted
　　economicdoctrines，butalsobecauseitis，and，webelieve，willremain，thelastimportantproductoftheoldEnglishschool。
　　Theauthorattheoutsetexpressesthehopethatitwillstrengthen，andaddconsistenceto，thescientificfabric"builtupby
　　thelaboursofAdamSmith，Malthus，Ricardo，andMill。"WhilstrecognizingwithhimthegreatmeritsofSmith，andthereal
　　abilitiesandservicesofhisthreesuccessorsherenamed，wecannotentertainthesameopinionasCairnesrespectingthe
　　permananceofthefabrictheyconstructed。Weholdthatanewedificeisrequired，incorporatingindeedmanyofthe
　　materialsoftheold，butplannedondifferentideasandinsomerespectswithaviewtodifferentends——aboveall，restingon
　　differentphilosophicfoundations，andhavingrelationinitswholedesigntothemorecomprehensivestructureofwhichit
　　willformbutonedepartment，namely，thegeneralscienceofsociety。
　　Cairnes’sSlavePower，（1862）wasthemostvaluableworkwhichappearedonthesubjectofthegreatAmericanconflict。
　　FRANCE
　　AllthelaterEuropeanschoolspresuppose—inpartadopting，inpartcriticising——theworkoftheEnglisheconomistsfrom
　　Smith（62）toRicardoandtheEpigoni。TheGermanschoolhashadinagreaterdegreethananyotheramovementofits
　　own—following，atleastinitsmorerecentperiod，anoriginalmethod，andtendingtospecialandcharacteristicconclusions。
　　TheFrenchschool，ontheotherhand，—ifweomittheSocialists，whodonotherecomeunderconsideration，—hasinthemain
　　reproducedthedoctrinesoftheleadingEnglishthinkers，——stoppingshort，however，ingeneraloftheextremesofRicardo
　　andhisdisciples。InthefieldofexpositiontheFrenchareunrivalled;andinpoliticaleconomytheyhaveproducedaseriesof
　　moreorlessremarkablesystematictreatises，text—books，andcompendiums，attheheadofwhichstandsthecelebratedwork
　　ofJ。B。Say。ButthenumberofseminalmindswhichhaveappearedinFrencheconomicliteratureofwriterswhohave
　　contributedimportanttruths，introducedimprovementsofmethod，orpresentedthephenomenaundernewlight——hasnot
　　beenlarge。Sismondi，Dunoyer，andBastiatwilldeserveourattention，asbeingthemostimportantofthosewhooccupy
　　independentpositions（whetherpermanentlytenableornot），ifwepassoverforthepresentthegreatphilosophical
　　renovationofAugusteComte，whichcomprehendedactuallyorpotentiallyallthebranchesofsociologicalinquiry。Before
　　estimatingthelaboursofBastiat。weshallfinditdesirabletoexaminetheviewsofCarey，themostrenownedofAmerican
　　economists，withwhichthelatestteachingsoftheingeniousandeloquentFrenchmanare，uptoacertainpoint，in
　　remarkableagreement。Cournot，too，mustfindaplaceamongtheFrenchwritersofthisperiod，asthechiefrepresentative
　　oftheconceptionofamathematicalmethodinpoliticaleconomy。
　　OfJeanBaptisteSay（1767—1832）Ricardosays"Hewasthefirst，oramongthefirst，ofContinentalwriterswhojustly
　　appreciatedandappliedtheprinciplesofSmith，andhasdonemorethanallotherContinentalwriterstakentogetherto
　　recommendthatenlightenedandbeneficialsystemtothenationsofEurope。"TheWealthofNationsintheoriginallanguage
　　wasplacedinSay’shandsbyClavière，afterwardsminister，thendirectoroftheassurancesocietyofwhichSaywasaclerk;
　　andthebookmadeapowerfulimpressiononhim。Longafterwards，whenDupontdeNemourscomplainedofhisinjustice
　　tothephysiocrats，andclaimedhimas，throughSmith，aspiritualgrandsonofQuesnayandnephewofTurgot，hereplied
　　thathehadlearnedtoreadinthewritingsofthemercantileschool，hadlearnedtothinkinthoseofQuesnayandhis
　　followers，butthatitwasinSmiththathehadlearnedtoseekthecausesandtheeffectsofsocialphenomenainthenatureof
　　things，andtoarriveatthislastbyascrupulousanalysis。HisTraitsd’ÉconomiePolitique（1803）wasessentiallyfoundedon
　　Smith’swork，butheaimedatarrangingthematerialsinamorelogicalandinstructiveorder。（63）HehastheFrenchartof
　　easyandlucidexposition，thoughhisfacilitysometimesdegeneratesintosuperficiality;andhencehisbookbecamepopular，
　　bothdirectlyandthroughtranslationsobtainedawidecirculation，anddiffusedrapidlythroughthecivilizedworldthe
　　doctrinesofthemaster。Say’sknowledgeofcommonlife，saysRoscher，wasequaltoSmith’s;buthefallsfarbelowhimin
　　livinginsightintolargerpoliticalphenomena，andhecarefullyeschewshistoricalandphilosophicalexplanations。Heis
　　sometimesstrangelyshallow，aswhenhesaysthat"thebesttaxisthatsmallestinamount。"Heappearsnottohavemuch
　　claimtothepositionofanoriginalthinkerinpoliticaleconomy。Ricardo，indeed，speaksofhimashaving"enrichedthe
　　science，byseveraldiscussions，original，accurate，andprofound。"Whathehadspeciallyinviewinusingthesewordswas
　　whatis，perhapsratherpretentiously，calledSay’sthéoriedesdébouchés，withhisconnecteddisproofofthepossibilityofa
　　universalglut。Thetheoryamountssimplytothis，thatbuyingisalsoselling，andthatitisbyproducingthatweareenabled
　　topurchasetheproductsofothers。Severaldistinguishedeconomists，especiallyMalthusandSismondi，inconsequence
　　chieflyofamisinterpretationofthephenomenaofcommercialcrises，maintainedthattheremightbegeneralover—supplyor
　　excessofallcommoditiesabovethedemand。ThisSayrightlydenied。Aparticularbranchofproductionmay，itmustindeed
　　beadmitted，exceedtheexistingcapabilitiesofthemarket;but，ifwerememberthatsupplyisdemand，thatcommoditiesare
　　purchasingpower，wecannotacceptthedoctrineofthepossibilityofauniversalglutwithoutholdingthatwecanhavetoo
　　muchofeverythingthat"allmencanbesofullyprovidedwiththeprecisearticlestheydesireastoaffordnomarketfor
　　eachother’ssuperfluities。"Whateverservices，however，Saymayhaverenderedbyoriginalideasonthoseorothersubjects，
　　hisgreatmeritiscertainlythatofapropagandistandpopulariser。
　　Theimperialpolicewouldnotpermitasecondeditionofhisworktobeissuedwithouttheintroductionofchangeswhich，
　　withnobleindependence，herefusedtomake;andthateditiondidnotthereforeappeartill1814。Threeothereditionswere
　　publishedduringthelifeoftheauthorin1817，1819，and1826。In1828Saypublishedasecondtreatise，Courscomplet
　　d’éonomiePolitiquepratique，whichcontainedthesubstanceofhislecturesattheConservatoiredesArtsetMétiersandat
　　theCollégedeFrance。`Whilstinhisearliertreatisehehadkeptwithinthenarrowlimitsofstricteconomics，inhislater
　　workheenlargedthesphereofdiscussion，introducinginparticularmanyconsiderationsrespectingtheeconomicinfluence
　　ofsocialinstitutions。
　　JeanCharlesL。SimondedeSismondi（17731842），authoroftheHistoiredesRépubliquesItalienisesdismoyenâge，
　　representsintheeconomicfieldaprotest，foundedmainlyonhumanitariansentiment，againstthedominantdoctrinesHe
　　wrotefirstatreatiseDelaRichesseCommerciale（1803），inwhichhefollowedstrictlytheprinciplesofAdamSmith。Buthe
　　afterwardscametoregardtheseprinciplesasinsufficientandrequiringmodification。Hecontributedanarticleonpolitical
　　economytotheEdinburghEncyclopeadia，inwhichhisnewviewswerepartiallyindicated。Theywerefullydevelopedinhis
　　principaleconcmicwork，NouveauxPrincipesd’ÉconomiePolitique，oudelaRichessedanssesrapportsavecla
　　Population（1819;2ded。，1827）。Thiswork，ashetellsus，wasnotreceivedwithfavourbyeconomists，afactwhichhe
　　explainsbytheconsiderationthathehad"attackedanorthodoxyanenterprisedangerousinphilosophyasinreligion。"
　　Accordingtohisview，thescience，ascommonlyunderstood，wastoomuchofamerechrematistic:itstudiedtoo
　　exclusivelythemeansofincreasingwealth，andnotsufficientlytheuseofthiswealthforproducinggeneralhappiness。The
　　practicalsystemfoundedonittended，ashebelieved，notonlytomaketherichricher，buttomakethepoorpoorerand
　　moredependent;andhedesiredtofixattentiononthequestionofdistributionasbyfarthemostimportant，especiallyinthe
　　socialcircum—stancesofrecenttimes。
　　ThepersonalunioninSismondiofthreenationalities，theItalian，theFrench，andtheSwiss，andhiscomprehensivehistorical
　　studies，gavehimaspeciallargenessofview;andhewasfilledwithanoblesympathyforthesufferingmembersofsociety。
　　HestandsnearertosocialismthananyotherFrencheconomistproper，butitisonlyinsentiment，notinopinion，thathe
　　approximatestoit;hedoesnotrecommendanysocialisticscheme。Onthecontrary，hedeclaresinamemorablepassage
　　that，whilstheseeswherejusticelies，hemustconfesshimselfunabletosuggestthemeansofrealisingitinpractice;the
　　divisionofthefruitsofindustrybetweenthosewhoareunitedintheirproductionappearstohimvicious;butitis，inhis
　　judgment，almostbeyondhumanpowertoconceiveanysystemofpropertyabsolutelydifferentfromthatwhichisknownto
　　usbyexperience。Hegoesnofurtherthanprotesting，inviewofthegreatevilswhichhesawaroundhim，againstthe
　　doctrineoflaisserfaire，andinvoking，somewhatvaguely，theinterventionofGovernmentstoregulatetheprogressof
　　wealthandtoprotecttheweakermembersofthecommunity。
　　Hisfrankconfessionofimpotence，farwiserandmorehonourablethanthesuggestionofprecipitateanddangerous
　　remedies，orofarecurrencetooutwornmediaevalinstitutions，hasnotaffectedthereputationofthework。Aprejudicewas
　　indeedearlycreatedagainstitinconsequenceofitspartialharmonyoftone，though，aswehaveseen，notofpolicy，with
　　socialism，whichwasthenbeginningtoshowitsstrength，aswellasbytherudewayinwhichhisdescriptionsofthemodern
　　industrialsystem，especiallyasitexistedinEngland，disturbedthecomplacentoptimismofsomemembersoftheso—called
　　orthodoxschool。Thesetreatedthebookwithill—disguisedcontempt，andBastiatspokeofitaspreachinganéconomie
　　politiqueàrebours。Butithashelditsplaceintheliteratureofthescience，andisnowevenmoreinterestingthanwhenit
　　firstappeared，becauseinourtimethereisamoregeneraldisposition，insteadofdenyingorglossingovertheseriousevils
　　ofindustrialsociety，tofaceandremoveoratleastmitigatethem。Thelaisserfairedoctrine，too，hasbeendiscreditedin
　　theoryandabandonedinpractice;andwearereadytoadmitSismondi’sviewoftheStateasapowernotmereintrusted
　　withthemaintenanceofpeace，butchargedalsowiththemissionofextendingthebenefitsofthesocialunionandofmodern
　　progressaswidelyaspossiblethroughallclassesofthecommunity。Yettheimpressionwhichhistreatiseleavesbehinditis
　　adiscouragingone;andthisbecauseheregardsasessentiallyevilmanythingswhichseemtobethenecessaryresultsofthe
　　developmentofindustry。Thegrowthofawealthycapitalistclassandofmanufactureonthegreatscale，theriseofavast
　　bodyofworkerswholivebytheirlabouralone，theextendedapplicationofmachines，largelandedpropertiescultivatedwith
　　theaidofthemostadvancedappliancesallthesehedislikesanddeprecates;buttheyappeartobeinevitable。Theproblem
　　is，howtoregulateandmoralisethesystemtheyimply;butwemustsurelyacceptitinprinciple，unlessweaimatathorough
　　socialrevolution。SismondimayberegardedastheprecursoroftheGermaneconomistsknownundertheinexact
　　designationofSocialistsoftheChair;buttheirwritingsaremuchmorehopefulandinspiring。
　　Tothesubjectofpopulationhedevotesspecialcare，asofgreatimportanceforthewelfareoftheworkingclasses。Sofaras
　　agriculturistsareconcerned，hethinksthesystemofwhathecallspatriarchalexploitation，wherethecultivatorisalso
　　proprietor，andisaidedbyhisfamilyintillingthelandalawofequaldivisionamongthenaturalheirsbeingapparently
　　presupposedtheonewhichismostefficaciousinpreventinganundueincreaseofthepopulation。Thefatheris，insucha
　　case，abledistinctlytoestimatetheresourcesavailableforhischildren，andtodeterminethestageofsub—divisionwhich
　　wouldnecessitatethedescentofthefamilyfromthematerialandsocialpositionithadpreviouslyoccupied。Whenchildren
　　beyondthislimitareborn，theydonotmarry，ortheychooseamongsttheirnumberonetocontinuetherace。Thisisthe
　　viewwhich，adoptedbyJ。S。Mill，makessogreatafigureinthetoofavourablepresentationbythatwriterofthesystemof
　　peasantproprietors。
　　InnoFrencheconomicwriterisgreaterforceorgeneralsolidityofthoughttobefoundthaninCharlesDunoyer
　　（17861862），authorofLaLibertéduTravail（1845;thesubstanceofthefirstvolumehadappearedunderadifferenttitlein
　　1825），honourablyknownforhisintegrityandindependenceundertherégimeoftheRestoration。Whatmakeshimofspecial
　　importanceinthehistoryofthescienceishisviewofitsphilosophicalconstitutionandmethod。Withrespecttomethod，he
　　strikesthekeynoteattheveryoutsetinthewords"rechercherexpérimentalement，"andinprofessingtobuildon"les
　　donnéesdel’observationetdel’expérience。"Heshowsamarkedtendencytowideneconomicsintoageneralscienceof
　　society，expresslydescribingpoliticaleconomyashavingforitsprovincethewholeorderofthingswhichresultsfromthe
　　exerciseanddevelopmentofthesocialforces。ThislargerstudyisindeedbetternamedSociology;andeconomicstudiesare
　　betterregardedasformingonedepartmentofit。Buttheessentialcircumstanceisthat，inDunoyer’streatmentofhisgreat
　　subject，thewidestintellectual，moral，andpoliticalconsiderationsareinseparablycombinedwithpurelyeconomicideas。It
　　mustnotbesupposedthatbyliberty，inthetitleofhiswork，ismeantmerelyfreedomfromlegalrestraintoradministrative
　　interference;heusesittoexpresswhatevertendstogiveincreasedefficiencytolabour。Heisthusledtodiscussallthe
　　causesofhumanprogress，andtoexhibitthemintheirhistoricalworking。