down by the best English authorities is as follows:"Political Economy is the science which states the laws regulating the production and distribution of wealth, so far as they depend on the action of the human mind." "'* In the view taken of the character and limits of Political Economy by the economists who have propounded or adopted this definition I substantially agree, and in the course of this and the following lectures shall endeavour to vindicate its propriety, but it appears to me that the language of the definition does not correctly describe that character and those limits as expounded by its authors. I shall, therefore, venture to substitute for the definition which I have just read, one or other of the two

*

Vide Senior's "Introductory Lectures," p. 36. The definition of Mr. M'Culloch, viz:-"the science of the laws which regulate the production, distribution, and consumption of those articles or products that have exchangeable value, and are at the same time, necessary, useful, or agreeable to man," though perhaps sufficient for the purpose of conveying to a learner a general preconception of the subject of his studies, is obviously deficient, as has been pointed out by Mr. Mill, in the requirements of scientific precision; there being scarcely a law of nature physical or moral which does not directly or indirectly influence" the production, distribution, and consumption of wealth." The definition which I have given in the text from Mr. Senior is substantially the same as that which Mr. Mill had given in his Essay. This definition, Mr. Mill thinks, "though for popular use amply sufficient, still falls short of the complete accuracy required for the purposes of the philosopher." Finally he gives (p. 140) the following definition as fulfilling the required conditions, viz: "The science which traces the laws of such of the phenomena of Society as arise from the combined operations of mankind for the production of wealth, in so far as these phenomena are not modified by the pursuit of any other object." My reasons for not adopting this definition will appear in a subsequent lecture.

following; either of which I think sufficiently meets the requirements of the case. "Political Economy is the science, which, accepting as ultimate facts the principles of human nature and the physical laws of the external world, investigates the laws of the production and distribution of wealth which result from their combined operation." Or, "Political Economy is the science which traces the phenomena of the production and distribution of wealth up their causes, in the principles of human nature and the laws and events of the external world."* Reserving for a future occasion the vindication of this change, I shall for the present confine myself to the consideration of those points in which the received definition and those which I have proposed, agree.

to

Whichever be the definition which we adopt, it appears, first, that Political Economy has "wealth" for its subject-matter; and, secondly, that it is a science, and not an art.

First, the subject-matter of Political Economy is wealth. On no ground has Political Economy met with more opposition than on what has been called "its exclusive devotion to wealth." The various objections

* Of the two definitions proposed, the sole difference is that the latter is somewhat more extensive than the former, including not only the discovery of laws, but the explanation of phenomena. The word "law" is not introduced into the latter definition, because the explanation of a phenomenon presupposes the discovery of the law or laws on which it depends.

† Vide Whately's Introductory Lectures on Political Economy, page 11.

of a popular kind which have been advanced against the study upon this ground, it is not my intention to notice at any length, for reasons which have been already assigned. I shall only remark that these objections almost all resolve themselves into thisthat there are matters of importance which are not included within the range of Political Economy-an objection which seems to proceed upon the assumption that Political Economy is intended as a general curriculum of education, and not as a means of eliciting truths of a specific kind.* Thus a late writer in the North British Review speaks slightingly of Political Economy as "a fragmentary science." Now what is the value of this objection? Does the writer mean that Political Economy is a fragment of universal knowledge? This may be granted, and yet the point of the objection be still not very apparent, unless we suppose that he designed to advocate some "great and comprehensive science," such as that which Thales and his contemporaries had in view when they inquired" what is the origin of all things?" Indeed if the history of scientific progress teaches any lesson more distinctly than another, it is, that human research has generally been successful just in proportion as its

* "Que l'économie politique ne s'occupe que des intérêts de cette vie, c'est une chose évidente, avouée. Chaque science a son objet qui lui est propre. Si elle sortait de ce monde, ce ne serait plus de l'économie politique, ce serait la théologie. On ne doit pas plus lui demander compte de ce qui se passe dans un monde meilleur, qu'on ne doit demander à la physiologie comment s'opère la digestion dans l'estomac des anges." Say, vol. 1, page 48, third edition.

objects have been strictly limited and clearly defined; that is to say, in proportion as science has become fragmentary."

But, passing by popular objections, it cannot be denied that the limitation of Political Economy to the single subject of wealth has been objected to by some economists of reputation and authority, who have, accordingly, in their treatment of the science, extended the range of its inquiries; embracing in the same discussion, in addition to the laws of wealth, everything which affects the well-being of society. The objections to this course appear to me to be fundamental and insuperable.

In the first place, the great variety of interests and considerations included under the expression "social well-being" would seem to render the comprehension of them in one system of doctrines difficult, if not impracticable. But the fundamental defect in this mode of treatment-in the attempt to combine in the the same discussion the laws of wealth and the laws of society-consists in this, that even where the subjectmatter of the two inquiries is identical, even where the facts which they consider are the same, yet the relations and aspects under which these facts are viewed are essentially different. The same things, the same persons, the same actions are discussed with reference to a different object, and, therefore, require to be classified on a different principle.

If our object, for example, were to discover the laws of the production and distribution of wealth, those

instruments of production, the productiveness of which depends on the same conditions, and those persons whose share in the products of industry is governed by the same principles, should, respectively, be placed in the same categories; while, if our object were the larger one of social interests and relations generally, we might require a very different arrangement. Thus superior mental power, regarded with a view to the production of wealth, is an instrument of production perfectly analogous to superior fertility of soil; they are both monopolized natural agents; and the share which their owners obtain in the wealth which they contribute to produce, is regulated by precisely the same principles. Men of genius, therefore, and country gentlemen, however little else they may have in common, yet being both proprietors of monopolized natural agents, would in an inquiry into the laws of wealth be properly placed in the same class. In the same way, the wages of a day labourer and the salary of a minister of state depend on the same principlethe demand for and supply of their services; and these persons, therefore, so widely different in their social position and importance, would be included by the economist in the same category. On the other hand, farmers and landlords, who, with a view to social inquiries, would probably be ranked together as belonging to the agricultural interest, would, if our object were the narrow one of the discovery of the laws of wealth, be properly placed in different classes : the income of the farmer depending on the laws