THE ECONOMY OF NATURE 21 



of a Ruskin to obtain at last some degree of recognition of the 

 " moral signs " attached to wealth the distinction, that is, 

 between wealth and " illth." 



No Ruskin of Biology has however yet appeared to sift the 

 grain from the chaff as regards the rights and the wrongs of 

 " organic capital." I venture to think that the verdict of History 

 will be that both Biology and Political Economy failed of their 

 chief object through a neglect of moral signs. 



The pioneers of both sciences wished to avoid such short- 

 comings by proceeding very comprehensively. Those of 

 Political Economy wanted their science to embrace the natural 

 laws which determine the prosperity of nations, their civilisation, 

 wealth, happiness, etc. They were mindful enough of the 

 Baconian statement which I introduced at the beginning of 

 this chapter. They were in quest, in Bacon's language, of " foun- 

 tains of justice " upon which to found their science. There 

 are indications indeed to show that they were in quest of some- 

 thing cognate to what I have ventured to call " Bio-Economics." 

 But there was little in the then science of Biology to help them, 

 and later schools, e.g., that of " Natural Selection," implicitly 

 or explicitly denied all justice or morality in Nature. Samuel 

 Butler prefers the older pioneers of " Evolution." He speaks 

 of the days before " Natural Selection " had been discharged 

 into the waters of the evolution controversy, like the secretions 

 of a cuttle fish, and he also states that : 



" Our modern evolutionists should allow that animals are modified not 

 because they subsequently survive, but because they have done this or 

 that which has led to their modification, and hence to their surviving." 



The hour for the unification of Natural and Political 

 Economy had not struck and, hence, the commendable attempts 

 of the pioneers of Political Economy ended in failure. They 

 were told that the range of their definitions was far too wide, 

 too all-inclusive of the other sciences, so that " the best encyclo- 

 paedia would really be the best treatise on Political Economy." 



But, as the course of that science has evidenced, Political 

 Economy could ill afford to be without knowledge of the natural 

 fountains of justice. Having been too scantily informed on 

 these vital matters by Biology, Political Economy failed, in 

 turn, to become the true handmaid of the former. Both depart- 

 ments of knowledge, therefore, remained more or less " anaemic " 

 and became " dismal " and unsatisfactory in all they taught. 



