TRANSACTIONS OF SECTION F. 751 



It is a singulai- thing that another most important matter is very much dealt 

 with in a like way. One would suppose that any educated person would like to 

 have some acquaintance with the laws of his country — certainly that Englishmen 

 would, as they are proud of their laws, and they are responsible for them. For if 

 wrong, the power to alter them is with those they rule. But a similar argument 

 is used — ' The law is so dry.' I deny it. No doubt, if you have to learn how to 

 serve a writ, and how many days a defendant has before he need plead, and so on 

 it is dry and wearisome enough. But if the study is not of the practice of the law 

 but of its broad, general principles, it is quite otherwise. Of the four volumes 

 of ' Blackstone's Commentaries,' three, to my mind, are most agreeable reading. 

 These general principles should be taught as a part of ordinary education. So of 

 Political Economy — it has been called a dismal science. I never could read ten 

 pages of him who so called it. It has been called inhuman and unfeelino-. The 

 same epithets might as well be applied to * EucHd's Elements,' or to a treatise on 

 baking or brewing. Indeed, much more reasonably, for Political Economy lays down 

 those rules which will procure the greatest amount of enjoyment. 



The governing precepts of Political Economy are few. In my judgment, its 

 main one is 'Laissezfaire ' — ' let be.' As M. Molinara says, 'Noire emngile se re.mme 

 en quatre mots — " Laissezfaire, laissez passer ." ' Leave everyone to seek his own hap- 

 piness in his own way, provided he does not injure others. Govern as little as possible. 

 Meddle not, interfere not, any more than you can help. Trust to each man knowino- 

 his own interest better, and pursuing it more earnestly than the law can do it 

 for him. I beUeve this maxim will justify most of the rules that right economists 

 have laid down — let your people buy in the cheapest and sell in the dearest 

 markets. That enjoins free trade. For the trader, whether he buys at home or 

 abroad, seeks the cheapest market. If a duty is put on the foreign article to 

 protect the home producers, the trader is interfered with. The consumer is 

 interfered with. The law says he shall not consume that which he can get at the 

 lowest price — that the producers, the capitalists, and the labourers shall not employ 

 their capital and labour as they would if left to themselves ; shall not produce 

 something they could exchange with the foreigner for something he can produce 

 more cheaply than they ; shall not buy of him, and so shall lose him as a customer 

 and so, not being able to employ the capital and labour on what he would take 

 therefore must employ it in some other way. 



I say this is one of the most important precepts of Political Economy. It is 

 plain and simple — a broad, intelligible principle ; and so are aU the leading truths 

 of economic teaching. 



But it is not my intention to treat further on the science generally. One 

 subject, on which I wish to say a few words particularly, is Socialism. I once 

 said to Mr. Newmarch, known to many of you as a most able man, ' I am 

 a bit of a Socialist.' He said, 'Yes; every right-minded man has a tendency 

 that way.' Our reasons were the same. It is impossible not to have a doubt 

 or misgiving whether it is right that one man should have in an hour as many 

 pounds sterling as another has in a year ; whether one man should suffer the 

 extreme of misery and privation, and another have every, not only necessity 

 but superfluity. It is a truth hard to believe ; but I am satisfied that it is a truth! 

 The great object of a society in this matter should be to make what the Americans 

 call the largest pile — the greatest quantity to be distributed and consumed. I do 

 not say that a more equal division than exists is not desirable, but 1 say that in 

 the attempt to bring it about by law the pile will be reduced. If you gave an equal 

 share to each, do you suppose — can anyone suppose — that each would work as hard 

 as he does now ? A man would know that the lazy and idle would indulge themselves 

 at his expense if he worked. He would feel he had a sort of right to do the same, 

 and he would do it. I repeat what I have said, that when men are as honest as 

 the bees we may have Socialism or Communism — not till then. As to the argu- 

 ment or assertion that all men are equal and have equal rights, it is untrue, and 

 absurdly untrue. It is equivalent to saying that aU men are equally strong 

 equally industrious, equally clever. Why should not the more industrious man 

 be better off than the less industrious ? No reason can be given. But, if that is 



