which he commences with the position * that modern political economy is no more applicable to human nature than would be a gymnastic science which assumed that men are devoid of skeletons. Then, it is found somehow to be applicable; † but, when applied, it teaches the doctrine of ruthless competition; and so its teaching comes to be characterized ‡ as directions "given for the gaining of wealth, irrespectively of the consideration of its moral sources," which idea is "perhaps the most insolently futile that ever beguiled men through their vices." Political economy is also mistaken,§ it seems, in the matter to which it is entirely devoted; for instead of determining the laws of the production of material wealth, the object ought to have been the laws of the production of "souls of a good quality," "full-breathed, bright-eyed, and happy-hearted human creatures." We cannot be surprised, if these statements have truth, that political economy is dismissed as an “exploded science." From the more strictly philosophic * "Unto this Last," p. 4. + Ibid., p. 60. † Ibid., pp. 55-57. § Ibid., pp. 64-66, and elsewhere. side, Dr. Stirling, for the Hegelians, holds that the current teachers represent only a fugitive "moment," that, namely, of the absoluteness of the individual reason-a position historically inevitable, but in itself a principle of anarchy, whose end is to be replaced by the truer "moment" of the absoluteness of the common, or right, reason. Fundamentally, Dr. Stirling's opposition is ethical. The absoluteness of the individual reason denotes the supremacy of self; and, in morals, the supremacy of a self is selfishThe criticisms thus gather themselves up into the point, is political economy immoral? Scarce any question can it be more desirable for us to answer. Every problem of social economy is directly or indirectly touched by this alleged science. Upon many of them it presumes to speak with the authority of knowledge. Legislators now for nearly a century have, in obedience to it, moulded the policies of nations. universities teach it, and to the enfranchised workman we say, here is the clue to comprehension of public affairs. ness. Our As none can deny the importance of the issue, so none can contemn the intellectual power, the moral authority, the deep conviction, and passionate fervour with which the opposition is waged. Both the fort and the assailants command our respect. The present chapter will be devoted to an attempt to consider the allegations above stated. Much of the animus displayed by the writers above named has been aroused by defects incidental to the temperament of early economists, and natural, perhaps, in the early treatment of the subject; but by no means necessarily present. Adam Smith, for instance, who is more important than all the other founders of political economy combined, will furnish forth an anthology which will explain our meaning. Concerning the workman, he affirms that "the real and effectual discipline which is exercised over a workman is not that of his corporation, but that of his customers. It is the fear of losing his employment which restrains his frauds and corrects his negligence."* With respect to *"Wealth of Nations," bk. i. ch. x. part 2. capitalists, "every individual is continually exerting himself to find out the most advantageous employment for whatever capital he can command. It is his own advantage, and not that of the society, which he has in view.”* Of the economic and ethical prospects of society generally he says, "To expect, indeed, that the freedom of trade should ever be entirely restored in Great Britain, is as absurd as to expect that an Oceania or Utopia should ever be established in it. Not only the prejudices, but what is much more unconquerable, the private interests of many individuals, irresistibly oppose it."† These are low views of human nature. The first of the above extracts affirms even common honesty to be practised only where it is perceived to be demanded by self-interest. Theft is shunned only so far as it is a mistake. The capitalist appears to have no other function in the world but that of finding out "the most advantageous employment for whatsoever capital he can command." He has no other bearing upon man; no duty or responsibility other than "Wealth of Nations," bk. iv. ch. ii. part 2. † Ibid. The that is discernible. Of course, elsewhere, Smith recognizes that man's blood is not utterly metallic; but yet, endeavouring to treat of living men in the concrete, and not merely of aspects, or sections, of men, he only accepts as important the narrowest self-interest. When other and qualifying elements are acknowledged, the moral virtues are not among them. last extract is consistent with this mood, and, indeed, deepens it. Not only will the selfishness of a section of society be eternally asserted against the welfare of the whole; but, worse still, the prejudices of that section are unconquerable. Permanent intellectual darkness is to reign joint sovereign with monopoly. These depressing views are untrue to life. Let us hope they are unfair analyses of Adam Smith's fellowScotchmen. His despair of freedom of trade is a prophecy which by its falsity convicts its author of error, and should greatly encourage the present-day Oceanians and Utopians. We might, from the works of Malthus, Ricardo, and other early economists, gather sentiments of a similar strain. The fact is, they largely wrote |