Page:The Economic Journal Volume 1.djvu/611

 REW.WS 589 ualislll, especially that of Adaln Smith, has been very 111uch exag- gerated. 1 At the same time, I suspect that there is SOllle exaggeration in Mr. Rae's own representations. It is true that the individualisnl of Adam Smith was greatly modified by his strong COllllnOn sense, and that he admitted very considerable lilnitations to the doctrine of laissez- faire. Still, it can hardly be denied that his tedecy was towards the removal of restrictions. This tendency became exaggerated by sonle of his more unguarded followers--perhaps by none more than by the Germans themselves; and after all it is not altogether unfair to describe as Smithiaismus what was the natural outconle of his teaching. Mr. Rae, however, is no doubt right in distinguishing carefully between the individualism of Adam Smith and that of Mr. Herbert Spencer. ' The liberty Smith desires is a substantial liberty; it is clothed -ith a body --a definite body of universal hunlan rights which the State is bound to realize as it would realize liberty itself. The reason of his difference from the laissez-faire theory of Mr. Spencer, which is so often erro- neously attributed to him, is that he takes a much broader and more practical view of the original lnoral rights of individuals than such ultra-individualists are accustomed to do. While they hold that the State is there only to secure to individuals reality and equality of free- dom, he holds it is there to secure them reality and equality of all moral rights.' Yes, but what are moral rights ? May we not fairly say that Mr. Herbert Spencer is to Adam Smith as Hmne to Locke ? If the functions of the State are to be based on individual rights, instead of on an organic view of society, are we not logically forced to attenuate theln in the way in which Mi'. Spencer has done ? The discussion of this question, however, would carry us beyond the limits of a review. Passing from such special points as this to a general survey of Mr. Rae's work, we may say that his treatment of Socialisnl is on the whole sympathetic and impartial. His discussion of particular theories, such as that of Karl Marx, is sound and well put, though scarcely exhaustive. It is not always evident why he selects certain aspects of Socialism and omits others. For instance, he seelns scarcely to attach suicient inportance to Rodbertus. Again, it is not quite apparent why, from his point of view, the ' Socialists of the Chair' should be regarded as Socialists at all. Again, he remarks on page 88 that ' No account of English Socialism would be complete that made no mention of the writings of Mr. Ruskin, which have probably done more than any single influence to imbue English minds with sentiments and principles of a Socialistic character.' If this is true and I believe it ismone would expect a somewhat fuller treatment of Mr. Ruskin's influence than is contained in this single sentence and in the one that follows it. On the other hand, Mr. Rue seems to deserve special commendation for the ruiness of his treatment of Carl Marlo (Professor Winkelblech)a writer who seems usually to receive less than his due. Though Mr. Rue is on the whole fair in his treatment of Socialism,  Cf. what is said on this point in ,Marshall's Principles of Ecomics, p. 56.