16 



not only sees, and sees with certainty, but the distinguishing 

 characteristic of it is, that it foresees. Thus it is distinguished 

 from art'' 



In its simplest enunciations, political economy is nearly as 

 much an exact science as mathematics ; as for example, when 

 it lays down the proposition that tJie demand creates the swpjply, 

 or that competition lowers prices, for these are matters of pure 

 reason, and are universally true ; but when facts have to be 

 observed, and disturbing elements are introduced, its character 

 becomes more mixed ; but it is always a science still, and nexer 

 an art. 



As there is a good deal of confusion in the popular mind 

 as to the relative meaning of these terms, it may be as well 

 to say a few words by way of distinguishing them. 



Science discovers law, and systematises or interprets facts, 

 which are, so to speak, fragments of law. Art is the appli- 

 cation of the principles discovered by science to purposes of 

 utility. Thus perspective, in as far as it treats of the angles 

 made by an object when viewed in different positions, is pro- 

 perly a part of mathematical science, but in as far as it is 

 applied in the delineation of objects, i'c is an art. So also 

 chemistry, when it discovers the laws which regulate the 

 combination of matter in different forms, is a science : but 

 when it is applied to the useful arts, it becomes itself an art. 

 Science discovers or demonstrates something ; art does some- 

 thing. Science enunciates principles ; art applies them. 

 Science is therefore theoretical ; art practical. The differ- 

 ence between science and art is pretty nearly the same as 

 between a theorem and a problem. 



The determination of the relations existing between capital 

 and labour may be called a theorem, and is a proper function 

 of political economy; how to regulate them so as best to 

 reconcile the interests of both is a problem, which is beyond 

 its real scope. 



From all this it will be seen that those persons who expect 

 political economy to settle the disputes between capital and 

 labour, to equahse the burdens of taxation, or directly to 

 interfere in any way in government or in the social relations, 

 simply look for that which, in the natureof things, can never 

 be. When men are on strike, for example, political economy 

 can never give them better wages, but it may show them the 

 consequences of their action, and make both their masters and 

 themselves more ready to accept a rational solution of the 

 difficulty. 



We may compare this and other abstract sciences to a 

 monarch who, choosing to lead a contemplative rather than a 

 practical life, contents himself with laying down, as the fi-uit 



