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。