THE CHEMICAL METHOD. 611* 



In the absence of the direct, we may next try, as in other cases, the sup- 

 plementary resource, called in a former place the Indirect Method of Dif- 

 ference ; which, instead of two instances differing in nothing but the pres- 

 ence or absence of a given circumstance, compares two classes of instances 

 I'espectively agreeing in nothing but the presence of a circumstance on the 

 one side and its absence on the other. To choose the most advantageous 

 case conceivable (a case far too advantageous to be ever obtained), suppose 

 that we compare one nation which has a restrictive policy Avith two or 

 more nations agreeing in nothing but in permitting free trade. We need 

 not now suppose that either of these nations agrees with the first in all its 

 circumstances ; one may agree with it in some of its circumstances, and an- 

 other in the remainder. And it may be argued, that if these nations re- 

 main poorer than the restrictive nation, it can not be for want either of the 

 first or of the second set of circumstances, but it must be for want of the 

 protective system. If (we might say) the restrictive nation had prospered 

 from the one set of causes, the first of the free-trade nations wolild have 

 prospered equally ; if by reason of the other, the second would ; but nei- 

 ther has; therefore the prosperity was owing to the restrictions. This 

 will be allowed to be a very favorable specimen of an argument from spe- 

 cific experience in politics, and if this be inconclusive, it would not be easy 

 to find another preferable to it. 



Yet, that it is inconclusive, scarcely requires to be pointed out. Why 

 must the prosperous nation have prospered from one cause exclusively? 

 National prosperity is always the collective result of a multitude of favor- 

 able circumstances; and of these, the restrictive nation may unite a greater 

 number than either of the others, though it may have all of those cii'cum- 

 stances in common with either one or the other of them. Its prosperity 

 may be partly owing to circumstances common to it with one of those na- 

 tions, and partly with the other, while they, having each of them only half 

 the number of favorable circumstances, have remained inferior. So that 

 the closest imitation which can be made, in the social science, of a legiti- 

 mate induction from direct experience, gives but a specious semblance of 

 conclusiveness, without any real value. 



§ 4. The Method of Difference in either of its forms being thus com- 

 pletely out of the question, there remains the Method of Agreement. But 

 we are already aware of how little value this method is, in cases admitting 

 Plurality of Causes ; and social phenomena are those in which the purality 

 prevails in the utmost possible extent. 



Suppose that the observer makes the luckiest hit which could be given- 

 by any conceivable combination of chances ; that he finds two nations which 

 agree in no circumstance whatever, except in having a restrictive system, 

 and in being prosperous ; or a number of nations, all prosperous, which 

 have no antecedent circumstances common to them all but that of having 

 a restrictive policy. It is unnecessary to go into the considei*ation of the 

 impossibility of ascertaining from history, or even from contemporary ob- 

 servation, that such is really the fact ; that the nations agree in no other 

 circumstance capable of influencing the case. Let us suppose this impossi- 

 bility vanquished, and the fact ascertained that they agree only in a restricts 

 ive system as an antecedent, and industrial prosperity as^ij«UWi»*micnt. 

 What degree of presumption does this raise that the rof^^mm^^^t^m. 

 caused the prosperity ? One so trifling as to be eqliivalra^ro noneV, 'al. 

 That some one antecedent is the cause of a given effecti^f cause, al^ qthq 



