750 KEPOET— 1888. 



grounds. But in Henry tlie Eightli's time 10 per cent, was allowed, not because 

 that was right and 11 per cent, wicked, but because it was supposed that trade 

 would be injured if more than that percentage could be taken for interest. The 

 percentage has been gradually lowered till forty or fifty years ago, when sound 

 economical reasons prevailed, the usury laws were repealed, and now any amount 

 can be taken. Mr. Henry George, however, of whom you may have heard, thinks 

 aU usury wrong. He calls himself an economist ; perhaps rightly. If he is, he 

 is a bad one. 



You cannot deny that these were economical laws because you think them 

 wrong. There are now free-traders and fair-traders — one is right, the other wrong. 

 I think I know which is which, but I suppose each party would call itself 

 economical, and could only be said not to be by the other because it was not right 

 in its notions. So also, I suppose, the homoeopathists and the allopathists are both 

 doctors, both professors of the science of medicine, though one at least is wi-ong, 

 perhaps both. 



It may be said that all the instances I give are instances of erroneous economy. 

 True. The good Political Economy of those times was abstinence from legislation — 

 the cases where people were not meddled with. Buckle said, very truly, that the 

 good done by modern legislation was the repeal of the old. But let us see a little 

 of the good that right opinions on Political Economy have brought about. 



It has made the workman a free man. He may employ himself in any work 

 which he can get trusted to him. He may demand any wages he thinks right, 

 refuse to work for less, and get all he can. He is no longer, by the miscliievous 

 laws of settlement, almost confined to the parish where he was born. He may go 

 to any part of the kingdom in search of work. He is no longer subject to punish- 

 ment for joining with his fellows to better his condition. He may combine with 

 them, and agree that they will, as a body, refuse to work unless their wages are 

 raised or other demands complied with. His doing so is no crime, provided he 

 does not violate the freedom and rights of others. 



Then look to capital. The capitalist may employ his capital as he thinks fit — 

 in home trade or foreign trade, in using it himself, in lending it to others. He 

 may join with others on the ordinary terms of private partnership, or in joint 

 stock corporate partnership, with liability limited or unlimited, as he thinks fit. 



But as to the goodness of following right economical rules, I say, ' circumspice.' 

 Look around ! They have been more studied and more followed here than any- 

 where else. Compare this country with any other. Look at its greatness, its 

 wealth, the comfort of its people, of all classes, as compared with other countries. 

 I do not deny our natural advantages, our mineral wealth, our admirable situation, 

 and, mostly, the bodily and mental condition of our people. But they would have 

 been comparatively wasted under bad economic laws. I may be told that the 

 United States of America beat us for wealth and general prosperity, as to which I 

 will only say that they are cultivating only their best land. We are driven to our 

 worst. And, further, that their best writers and reasoners support very different 

 economic laws from those which prevail there. 



I say, then, Political Economy is as old as society, and exists of necessity, 

 and is most important ; for on the goodness or badness of the rules its professors 

 believe in to a great extent depends the happiness of society. I believe its 

 rudiments should be taught to all, and I believe that learning them would not be 

 difficult. 



For what is it when truly understood? Man has desires and wants, and 

 therefore a disposition to gi-atify them, and has also a pleasure in an active life and 

 in attaining his objects. But he has also a desire for repose, and his power of 

 work is limited. Bearing these things in mind. Political Economy inquires what 

 are the best ways for man to attain these objects. It is not necessary that the 

 student should master all the ingenious and elaborate definitions in which writers 

 on Political Economy delight. I have in my mind a book, very clever and very 

 profound, which I can't read. It is very subtle, but not practical, and after a few 

 pages I get bewildered. Value, wealth, capital, labour, currency, and other things 

 are refined on to weariness, in spite of the talent exhibited. 



