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

V

much of the instability and vicissitude which have marked the progress of economic inquiry; but I do not think they are sufficient to explain the present vacillating and unsatisfactory condition of the science in respect to fundamental principles. To understand this, I think we must advert to circumstances of a more special character, and, more particularly, to the effect which the practical successes achieved by Political Economy (as exemplified in the rapid and progressive extension of the commerce of the country since the adoption of free trade) have had on the method of treating economic questions.

When Political Economy had nothing to recommend it to public notice but its own proper and intrinsic evidence, no man professed himself a political economist who had not conscientiously studied and mastered its elementary principles; and no one who acknowledged himself a political economist discussed an economic problem without constant reference to the recognized axioms of the science. But when the immense success of free trade gave experimental proof of the justice of those principles on which economists relied, an observable change took place both in the mode of conducting economic discussions, and in the class of persons who attached themselves to the cause of Political Economy. Many now enrolled themselves as political economists who had never taken the trouble to study the elementary principles of the science; and some, perhaps, whose capacities did not enable them to appreciate its evi

:

dence while even those who had mastered its doctrines, in their anxiety to propitiate a popular audience, were too often led to abandon the true grounds of the science, in order to find for it in the facts and results of free trade a more popular and striking vindication.* It was as if mathematicians, in order to attract new adherents to their ranks, had consented to abandon the method of analysis, and to rest the truth of their formulas on the correspondence of the almanacks with astronomical events. The severe and logical style which characterized the cultivators of the science in the early part of the century has thus been changed to suit the different character of the audience to whom economists now address themselves. discussions of Political Economy have been constantly assuming more of a statistical character; results are now appealed to instead of principles; the rules of arithmetic are superseding the canons of inductive reasoning; till the true course of investigation has

The

"the

See an article in the Edinburgh Review, April, 1854, on consumption of food in the United Kingdom," and compare this with the celebrated" Merchants' Petition" of 1820, the production of Mr. Tooke. With reference to the former I may quote the remark of Mr. Tooke :-" It is necessary, even in setting forth the successes of a just policy, that no violence should be done to established modes of reasoning, or to the facts of the case as they really exist."

†The error as to method complained of, is the opposite of that of "anticipatio naturæ," which was the bane of science when Bacon wrote, and against which his most vigorous attacks were directed. Nevertheless, (and it is a proof as well of the philosophic sagacity for which he was so distinguished, as of the perfect sobriety of his mind) the great reformer was not so carried away by his opposition to the prevailing abuse, as to overlook the danger of its opposite.

been well nigh forgotten, and Political Economy seems in danger of realizing the fate of Atalanta,

"Declinat cursus, aurumque volubile tollit."

It has been remarked by Mr. Mill that "in whatever science there exist, amongst those who have attended to the subject, what are commonly called differences of principle, as distinguished from differences of matter-of-fact or detail,-the cause will be found to be a difference in their conceptions of the philosophic method of the science. The parties who differ are guided, either knowingly or unconsciously, by different views concerning the nature of the evidence appropriate to the subject." Now this appears to me to be strikingly the case with respect to those "differences of principle" to which I have adverted as at present existing amongst economists; and, therefore, I think I cannot better carry out the views of the liberal founder of this chair, than by availing myself of the opportunity which the opening of this course affords of considering at some

In the following passage he describes with singular accuracy, both the error itself to which I have adverted, and the causes of it. "Quod si etiam scientiam quandam, et dogmata ex experimentis moliantur; tamen semper fere studio præpropero et intempestivo deflectunt ad praxin : non tantum propter usum et fructum ejusmodi praxeos; sed ut in opere aliquo novo veluti pignus sibi arripiant, se non inutiliter in reliquis versaturos: atque etiam aliis se venditent, ad existimationem meliorem comparandam de iis in quibus occupati sunt. Ita fit, ut, more Atalanta, de via decedant ad tollendum aureum pomum ; interim vero cursum interrumpant, et victoriam emittant e manibus." Novum Organum, lib. I., aph. 70.

* Essays, page 141.