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。