length the nature, object, and limits of economic science, and the method of investigation proper to it as a subject of scientific study.

In discussing the nature, limits, and proper method of Political Economy, I shall at once pass over those numerous prepossessions connected with the study of this science, some of a moral, some of a religious, and some of a psychological nature, which so much impeded its early advances. To enter at any length into such considerations would be to occupy your time in travelling over ground which probably you have already traversed, or which, at all events, it is in your power to traverse in other and more edifying company; and to waste my own in combating objections, which either have ceased to exist, or, if they do exist, exist in spite of repeated refutations-refutations the most complete and irrefragable, to which I could hope to add nothing of point or weight, and which I should only weaken by translating them into my own language."

*

I shall therefore at starting take it for granted that "wealth," the subject-matter of Political Economy, is susceptible of scientific treatment; that there are laws of its production and distribution; that mankind in their industrial operations are not governed by mere caprice and accident, but by motives which act extensively and constantly, which may therefore be discovered and classified, and made to serve as the principles of subsequent deductions. I shall further

See particularly Whately's Introductory Lectures on Political Economy.

take it for granted that a knowledge of these laws of the production and distribution of wealth is a desirable and useful acquisition, both as a part of a liberal education, and for the practical purposes to which it may be applied; and, further, that this knowledge is more likely to be obtained by careful and systematic inquiry than by what is called the common sense of practical men—another name for the crude guesses of unmethodized experience; and, lastly, I shall assume that the study of those principles and motives of human conduct which are brought into play in the pursuit of wealth is not incompatible with the sentiments and duties of religion and morality.

The definition of Political Economy cannot be said to be as yet agreed upon.* That which has been laid

* It is not however to be supposed from this that the science itself has made no progress. As has been pointed out by Mr. J. S. Mill, "the definition of a science has almost invariably not preceded, but followed, the creation of the science itself. Like the wall of a city, it has usually been erected, not to be a receptacle for such edifices as might afterwards spring up, but to circumscribe an aggregation already in existence. Mankind did not measure out the ground for intellectual cultivation before they began to plant it; they did not divide the field of human investigation into regular compartments first, and then begin to collect truths for the purpose of being therein deposited; they proceeded in a less systematic manner. As discoveries were gathered in, either one by one, or in groups resulting from the continued prosecution of some uniform course of inquiry, the truths which were successively brought into store cohered and became agglomerated according to their individual affinities. Without any intentional classification, the facts classed themselves. They became associated in the mind according to their general and obvious resemblances; and the aggregates thus formed, having to be frequently spoken of as aggregates, came to be denoted by a common name. Any body of truths which had thus acquired a collective denomination was called a science." &c.-Essays, page 120.

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 to 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.

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 II.

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

* 66 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.