630 
cal Heonomy,’, the subject would: hardly 
beoworth:2 remark 3: but. itis: plain that 
he means:to:be understood as:express- 
ing icontempt ifor: the / science itself. 
Thetevis great inconsistency «i this; 
fat, according to ‘his:own: definition, it 
iscaiscience of the greatest unportance 
to mankind: 
His inconsistency is not, however, 
uncommon: men bred up in prejudices 
cannot easily shake them off, and, if I 
do not greatly mistake, your corre- 
spondent has been so bred; and, from 
the style of his article, has, with all his 
prejudices about him, arrived at an age 
-when men generally assume a tone of 
authority, whieh is but too often the 
enemy to an increase of knowledge. 
/The man of forty. is not very likely to 
become. a convert to new discoveries, 
which are directly opposed to his long- 
established’ prejudices... Some men are 
capable. of acquiring new ideas at.any 
age; but: these are few in number. The 
generality of mankind, when they arrive 
atan-age at which it'has been usual to 
suppose a man’s opinions. are fixed, are 
seldom’ capable of entertaining new 
ideas, and consequently prone to con- 
demn what they consider an innova- 
tion. No sooner is a discovery made, or 
au old-one applied in a way different to 
that to which they have been accustom- 
ed, than they condemn it ; and the rea- 
son is, that they cannot associate it with 
their old ideas, and cannot, therefore, 
understand it. If, for instance, you 
tell them, that a certain circumstance 
has been overlooked in a demonstration 
to which they have been accustomed, 
and that the demonstration is conse- 
quently erroneous, they will seldom be 
able to understand you. Certain words 
which have called up certain ideas will 
still excite those ideas; these) will be 
associated with other ideas as usual, and 
from this association they-will be unable 
to extricate themselves. They cannot 
break the association: and any attempt 
to. take in new ideas must, inevitably, 
in such‘a man, produce centusion. He 
is, therefore, net teachable; he calls 
out nonsense, simply because he cannot 
comprehend. The task, the perform- 
ance of which, to him, would be exces- 
sively painful, is laid aside, and if 
among others he find the least  va- 
riance, on eyen the most unimportant 
point, he consoles himself with a delu- 
Sion, and says, on this subject'no two 
agree. 0 49ol 19.03 GF 
“It ig; then, with political economy as - 
' 
it has ‘been with other sciences.'\ Im- 
Importance of theScience of Political Economy: 
provements’ hawe gentrallyi« been -re- 
ceived with reluctance:is\ Dhéiold ires 
jected them from prejudice ; und «they 
were acknowledged. only becanseuthese 
were ‘younger -persons:whoseothirst fey 
knowledgeswas greater, andswhose pres 
judices were weaker than those of\their 
elders. d; ovsd ,omis 
Mr. McCulloch, dn ‘his: excellent 
“ Discourse on the rise, progress; (pecus 
har objects and -importancecof\ political 
economy,” gives a short account ofthe 
opinions which prevailed from the ear- 
liest times to the present day ;.and he 
explains the causes whicly ‘sufficiently 
account for the late rise in this ‘science; 
and the little attention paidite itp to 
avery recent period?” Incpage:8;, he. 
says, : [ .2oiuesser 
“ Tt is clear, however,’ that? these who 
distrust the conclusions of ‘politicahecono- 
my, because of the variety of systems:that 
have been advanced.ta expldin thé phe> 
nomena, about which it.is.conxyersant, might, 
on the same ground, distrust the, cenglu, 
sions of almost every other science. ; The 
discrepancy between, the various systems 
that have successively been sanctionéd by 
the ablest physicians,’ chemists, ‘naturél 
philosephers and morilists, is quite’ as 
great as the. discrepancy’ between’ “those 
advanced by the ablest political economiste. 
But who would therefore conclude, that 
medicine, chemistry, | natural, philosophy 
and morals, rest on no solid foundation ?.or 
that they are incapable of presenting, us 
with a system of well-established and 
consentaneous truths? We do, n eee se 
our assent to the demonstrations.o: ewan 
and La Place, because they are subversive 
of the hypotheses’ of Tycho Brahe, tnd 
Des Cartes; and why should we refuse 
our_assent to the demonstrations of’ Sniith 
and Ricardo, because they have subverted 
the false theories that were previously) dd> 
vanced respecting the sources and. the dis- 
tribution of wealth? Political economy has 
not been exempted from, the common fate 
of the other sciences. None of, them was 
instantaneously carried to perzection ; more 
or Iess of error has always insinuated ttschf 
Into the speculations of the earliest '¢ulti- 
vators. But the errors, with whieh politieal 
economy was formerly infested,"have-now 
nearly disappeared; and a very fewobser- 
vations will suffice to shew that-it really. 
admits of as much certainty un itsiconclas 
sions as any science founded on, fact | and 
experiment can possibly do,” ron. yd bas 
Had political economy been welkvum= 
derstood by our legislators, fifty’ years 
ago} it is ‘quite. impossible tosaycto 
what an-extent the wealth—and_pros- 
perity of this..country would, have an- 
creased, J do .not.:meax by’ prospansty, 
the having even a large number’ of pert 
sons 
