evidence are to be determined. To disregard this conflict of opinion, and to proceed to develope principles the foundations of which are constantly impugned, would be to prosecute inquiry to little purpose.

The discussion of economic method with a view to this object has rendered it necessary for me to refer principally to those questions on which opinion is at present divided; and, in doing so, I have been led frequently to quote from recent writers for the purpose simply of dissenting from their doctrines. This course, which I would gladly have avoided had it been compatible with the end in view, has given to portions of these lectures more of a controversial character than is, perhaps, desirable.

I feel also that some apology is due for the number and length of the notes. As I have just stated, the nature of the subject required frequent reference to disputed topics. To have met the current objections to the principles which I assumed, by stopping on each occasion to discuss them in the text, would have inconveniently broken the sequence of ideas, and hopelessly weakened the force of the general argument. On the other hand, to have wholly passed them by with

out notice would, perhaps, have been still more unsatisfactory to those who were disposed to adopt such objections. I should thus have been guilty of the imprudence of the commander who invades a country, leaving numerous untaken fortresses in his rear. Under these circumstances I have had recourse to the only other alternative-that of transferring such discussions to the notes, or, where the argument is too long for a note, to an appendix.

With the exception of the matter in the notes, and of some trifling alterations and additions, the lectures. are now published as they were originally delivereda circumstance which I hope will plead in extenuation of their numerous imperfections.

I cannot close these remarks without gratefully acknowledging the very liberal manner in which the Board of Trinity College has contributed towards the expense of the present publication.

LECTURES,

&c.

LECTURE I.

OF THE CHARACTER, OBJECTS, AND LIMITS OF

POLITICAL ECONOMY.

IN commencing a course of lectures on Political Economy, it is usual and natural to indulge in some congratulatory remarks on the progress of the science in recent times, and more particularly on the satisfactory results which have attended the extensive, though as yet but partial, recognition of its principles in the commercial and financial codes of the country. It is indeed not easy to exaggerate the importance of these latter achievements; and it is certainly true that economic doctrines have, in recent years, received some useful developments and corrections; at the same time I think it must be admitted that, on the whole, the present condition and prospects of the science are not such as a political economist can contemplate with unmixed satisfaction.

A

It is now a quarter of a century since Colonel Torrens wrote as follows:- "In the progress of the human mind, a period of controversy amongst the cultivators of any branch of science must necessarily precede the period of unanimity. With respect to Political Economy, the period of controversy is passing away, and that of unanimity rapidly approaching. Twenty years hence there will scarcely exist a doubt respecting any of its fundamental principles."* Five and twenty years have now passed since this unlucky prophecy was uttered, and yet such questions as those respecting the laws of population, of rent, of foreign trade, the effects of different kinds of expenditure upon distribution, the theory of prices-all fundamental in the science-are still unsettled, and must still be considered as "open questions," if that expression may be applied to propositions which are still vehemently debated, not merely by sciolists and smatterers, who may always be expected to wrangle, but by the professed cultivators and recognized expounders of the science. So far from the period of controversy having passed, it seems hardly yet to have beguncontroversy, I mean, not merely respecting propositions of secondary importance, or the practical application of scientific doctrines (for such controversy is only an evidence of the vitality of a science, and is a necessary condition of its progress), but controversy respecting fundamental principles which lie at the

* Essay on the Production of Wealth, Introduction, p. xiii. 1821. † Vide APPENDIX A.

root of its reasonings, and which were regarded as settled when Colonel Torrens wrote.

This state of instability and uncertainty as to fundamental propositions is certainly not favourable to the successful cultivation of Political Economy-it is not possible to raise a solid or durable edifice upon shifting quicksands; besides, the danger is ever imminent of reviving that scepticism respecting all economic speculation, which at one time so much impeded its progress. It would, indeed, be vain to expect that Political Economy should be as rapidly and steadily progressive as the mathematical and physical sciences. Its close affinity to the moral sciences, as has been often pointed out, brings it constantly into collision with moral feelings and prepossessions which can scarcely fail to make themselves felt in the discussion of its principles; while its conclusions, intimately connected as they are with the art of government, have a direct and visible bearing upon human conduct in some of the most exciting pursuits of life. Add to this, that the technical terms of Political Economy are all taken from popular language, and inevitably partake, in a greater or less degree, of the looseness of colloquial usage. It is not, therefore, to be expected that economic discussions should be carried on with the same singleness of purpose, or severity of expression and argumentation,—consequently with the same success, as if they treated of the ideas of number and extension, or of the properties of the material universe. Such considerations will, no doubt, account for