To complete the statement of the deserts of economists upon the point at issue, it should be said that, while economists have, on the whole, given no opinion concerning this matter, they ought to have done. Friendliness between employer and employed, with all that is concerned in that pregnant word, is an important element in the productiveness of labour, and of the return to capital. It is not only within the right, but it is an omitted duty of the economist, to attend to this factor equally with such qualities as honesty and security. The absence of this attention has probably arisen from a feeling that the rigidity of science demands the assumption of rigid relations based on the "commercial maxim." But it is not so. All that is required is the free acknowledgment of the economical value of kindly relations. It is true we cannot say how much will thus be added to the effectiveness of an hour's labour; but neither can we know this when increased education is acquired by the worker. Such knowledge is not necessary to the existence of political economy. A hypothetical human rigidity is required only

E

in the matter of exchange, and that is not disturbed by the introduction of friendliness in the relations of employer and employed.

Here, as before, we are able to trace deficiencies and errors natural to the development of a most intricate subject, in which imperfections may probably be found the plausible sources of hostility; but we find no solid ground for that hostility, at least not in the form which it has assumed. The need has been for assistive criticism, not for attempted destruction.

Our conclusion, then, will be that the separation of the study of the laws relating to wealth from the general science of sciences, which teaches the laws of man's conduct, and thus implies what that conduct ought to be-in other words, the separation of the science of wealth from the science of man-is practicable. Being practicable, it will be useful, and is, therefore, desirable; a conclusion which is confirmed by the rapid progress made in comprehending economical phenomena since Adam Smith effectively commenced that severance, as compared with the futile guesses which were the

high-water mark of the preceding period of nonseparation.

In the course of this essay, the answer assumed to be given to the contention that political economy cannot be immoral because it is a science, was that, even then, it was a false science, for it affirmed its postulate to be the "commercial maxim," nothing less than universal selfishness—an affirmation which is obviously untrue of the inhabitants of this planet, whatever may be true of those of others. To this it has been rejoined that only a part of political economy is affected by the charge; that this part does not assert self-regard as universal, but, what is very different, that it is universally true of the class of acts embraced by that part. It has, however, also been urged that the "commercial maxim" has no moral character, that it is neither the expression of selfishness nor any other ethical predicate. The final consideration of this question was, however, adjourned. If every transaction on competitive terms is, so far, an act of pure selfishness, morality demands its abolition. The following

essay seeks to answer this question, and also to consider the alternative of a "just price," which

is contended for by those who hold to the doctrine that competition is essentially bad.

CHAPTER II.

COMPETITIVE PRICE V. JUST PRICE.

THE rebellion against unchecked selfishness in commerce, curiously supposed to be a rebellion against political economy, has taken the form of a demand that exchange of commodities, of which labour is one, shall be based on justice, and not on the mere brute forces which we usually denote by the word "competition." The attack is directed against a position at once of paramount importance, and of apparently impregnable strength. When the division of labour is carried so far that no worker produces more than a fraction of his needs, and usually no part of them at all, exchange is the resource of all ; and the conditions which rule it largely rule us also. Two charges are brought against exchange, as determined by competition, namely,