Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 19.djvu/415

Rh POLITICAL ECONOMY 399 had descended from his best predecessors, especially those of the French school, whilst another would be the &quot;historical study,&quot; as it was followed in England by Jones, Rogers, and others, and as it had been proclaimed in general principle by his contemporary Cliffe Leslie. This was one of those eclectic views which have no permanent validity, but are useful in facilitating a transition. The two methods will doubtless for a time coexist, but the historical will inevitably supplant its rival. What Jevons meant as the &quot; theory &quot; he wished to treat by mathematical methods (see his Theory of Political Economy, 1871 ; 2nd ed., 1879). This project had, as we have seen, been entertained and partially carried into effect by others before him, though he unduly multiplies the number of such earlier essays when, for example, he mentions Ricardo and J. S. Mill as writing mathematically because they sometimes illustrated the meaning of their propositions by dealing with definite arithmetical quantities. Such illustrations, of which a specimen is supplied by Mill s treatment of the subject of international trade, have really nothing to do with the use of mathematics as an instrument for economic research, or even for the co-ordination of economic truths. We have already, in speaking of Cournot, explained why, as it seems to us, the application of mathematics in the higher sense to economics must necessarily fail, and we do not think that it succeeded in Jevons s hands. His conception of &quot;final utility&quot; is ingenious, but we cannot regard it as either &quot;positive&quot; or fruitful. He offers as a valuable result of mathematical investigation the theorem that in every case of exchange the quantity of each of the articles concerned multiplied by its utility is the same. But what is the unit of utility? If we cannot look for some thing more tangible not to say more serviceable than this, there is not much encouragement to pursue such re searches, which will in fact never be anything more than academic playthings, and which involve the very real evil of restoring the metaphysical entities previously discarded. The reputation of Jevons as an acute and vigorous thinker, inspired with noble popular sympathies, is sufficiently established. But the attempt to represent him, in spite of himself, as a follower and continuator of Ricardo, and as one of the principal authors of the development of economic theory (meaning by &quot; theory &quot; the old a priori doctrine) can only lower him in estimation by placing his services on grounds which will not bear criticism. His name will survive in connexion, not with new theoretical con structions, but with his treatment of practical problems, his fresh and lively expositions, and, as we have shown, his energetic tendency to a renovation of economic method. Arnold Toynbee (1852-1883), who left behind him a beautiful memory, filled as he was with the love of truth and an ardent and active zeal for the public good, was author of some fragmentary or unfinished pieces, which yet well deserve attention both for their intrinsic merit and as indicating the present drift of all the highest natures, especially amongst our younger men, in the treatment of economic questions. He had a belief in the organizing power of democracy which it is not easy to share, and some strange ideas due to youthful enthusiasm, such as, for ex ample, that Mazzini is &quot;the true teacher of our age;&quot; and he fluctuates considerably in his opinion of the Ricardian political economy, in one place declaring it to be a detected &quot;intellectual imposture,&quot; whilst elsewhere, apparently under the influence of Bagehot, he speaks of it as having been in recent times &quot; only corrected, re-stated, and put into the proper relation to the science of life,&quot; meaning apparently, by this last, general sociology. He saw, however, that our great help in the future must come, as much had already come, from the historical method, to which in his own researches he gave preponderant weight. Its true character, too, he understood better than many even of those who have commended it; for he perceived that it not only explains the action of special local or temporary con ditions on economic phenomena, but seeks by comparing the stages of social development in different countries and times to &quot;discover laws of universal application.&quot; If, as we are told, there exists at Oxford a rising group of men who occupy a position in regard to economic thought sub stantially identical with that of Toynbee, the fact is one of good omen for the future of the science. It is no part of our plan to pass judgment on the works of contemporary English authors, a judgment which could not in general be final, and which would be subject to the imputa tion of bias in a greater degree than estimates of living writers in foreign countries. But, for the information of the student, some opinions may be expressed which scarcely any competent person would dispute. The best brief exposition of political economy, substantially in accordance with Mill s treatise, is to be found in Fawcett s Manual (6th ed., 1884). But those who admit in part the claims of the new school will prefer Mr and Mrs Marshall s Economics of Industry (2d ed., 1881). Better, in some respects, than either is the Political Economy of the American professor, Francis A. Walker (1883), whose special treatises on Money and on the Wages Question may also be recommended. Other meritorious works are J. E. T. Rogers s Manual of Political Economy, 1870 ; John Macdonnell s Survey of Political Economy, 1871 ; and John L. Shtidwell s System of Political Economy, 1877. Prof. W. E. Hearn s Plutology (18G&amp;lt;1) contains one of the ablest extant treatments of the subject of pro duction. Mr Goschen s is the best work on the foreign exchanges (10th ed., 1879). Mr Macleod, though his general economic scheme has met with no acceptance, is recognized as supplying much that is useful on the subject of banking. Prof. Rogers s Six Centuries of Work and Wages (1884) is the most trustworthy book on the economic history of England during the period with which he deals. W. Cunningham s Growth of English Industry and Com merce, 1882, is instructive on the mercantile system. Dr W. Neilson Hancock has shown in a multitude of papers a most exten sive and accurate knowledge of the social economy of Ireland. On American political economy the reader will consult with advantage an article in the Fortnightly Rcviciv for September, 1880, by Cliffe Leslie, which was written after the publication of his collected essays. We can only mention some of the best-known works (besides those of F. A. Walker) produced in the United States. Amongst them are E. Peshine Smith s Manual of Political Economy, 1853 ; Francis Bowen s American Political Economy, 1870 ; Amasa Walker s Science of Wealth, 1867 ; A. L. Perry s Elements of Political Economy, 1866 (the two former writers are protectionist, the two latter free-traders ; Perry is a disciple of Bastiat). The principal works on American economic history are those of A. S. Bolles, entitled Industrial History of the United States, and Financial History of the United States, 1774-1789, 1879. We cannot here overlook a work like that of Mr Sidgwick (1883), to which we have already referred on a special point. It is impossible not to respect and admire the conscientious and penetrating criticism which he applies to the a priori system of economics in its most mature form. But it is open to question whether the task was wisely undertaken. It cannot be permanently our business to go on amending and limiting the Ricardian doctrines, and asking by what special interpretations of phrases or additional qualifications they may still be admitted as having a certain value. The time for a new construction has arrived ; and it is to this, or at least to the study of its conditions, that competent thinkers with the due scientific preparation should now devote themselves. It is to be feared that Mr Sidgwick s treatise, instead of, as he hopes, &quot;eliminating unnecessary controversy,&quot; will tend to revive the steriles contestations and oiseuses disputes de mots, which Comte censured in the earlier economists. It is interesting to observe that the part of _the work which is, and has been recognized as, the most valuable is that in which, shaking off the fictions of the old school, he examines independently by the light of observation and analysis the question of the industrial action of Governments. Let us briefly consider in conclusion, by the light of the preceding historical survey, what appear to be the steps in the direction of a renovation of economic science which are now at once practicable and urgent. I. Economic investigation has hitherto fallen for the most part into the hands of lawyers and men of letters, not into those of a genuinely scientific class. N&quot;or have its cultivators in general had that sound preparation in the