248 REPORT — 1887. 



The rationale of the former method is to compare the value at one epoch 

 of the set of articles consumed (per unit of time) by the average person 

 •with the corresponding valae at another epoch. The idea of the latter 

 plan is to compare the value of all purchasable things whatever existing 

 at one time with the corresponding value at another time. Several for- 

 mula having been constructed, the last stage of the complete method 

 would be to fill in the numerical values given by statistics. 



It appears to us that the theoretical analysis which forms the starting- 

 point of this procedure is quite indispensable. Tliat this preliminary 

 abstract, and one may almost say metaphysical discussion, is aljstruse in a 

 degree unusual in economical inquiries is an unavoidable peculiarity of 

 the problem proposed to us. It is true that those who have entered on 

 such discussions, like the votaries of speculative philosophy, may have 



found no end in wandering mazes lost. 



But without such discussion we cannot find even a beginning in the pre- 

 sent investigation. The first step must be at random, in the absence 

 of a definite notion in what direction, towards what end, one ought to 

 proceed. There can be no clue through the labyrinth of continually 

 dividing ways. In comparing the purchasing power of money at two 

 epochs, ought one to regard the prices of all commodities, or only some 

 selected ones ? In either case, is regard to be had to the amount of a 

 thing which is in existence, or the amount which is used (per unit of 

 time), or the amount which is sold ? If some articles are to be selected, 

 what articles ? If the objects of national consumption, shall we include 

 among these domestic service and residential houses ? These are a few 

 of the questions concerning which the investigator must be prepai-ed 

 with some answer. 



It may well be that no discussion, however intelligent, will result in 

 perfect agreement upon these questions. Those, however, who essay to 

 deduce a methodical answer from principles generally received will be 

 apt to diverge less violently from each other than those who embark upon 

 the subject without chart and compass. Philosophical speculation may 

 seem to play the same role in our particular problem as with respect to the 

 general conduct of life. While the theoretical distinctions between sys- 

 tems are multiplied by philosophers, the practical divergence between the 

 wise of every school tends to become minimised. On the other hand, 

 uncultivated persons and nations are apt to ei-ect into a rule of life some 

 trivial pi'actice recommended by any accidental association. Similarly, 

 to compare interests of different magnitude, those who approach the 

 monetary problem without some preliminary abstract discussion are 

 likely to attach undue importance to the first view of the subject which 

 presents itself. Some pai'ticular method of selecting and combining the 

 data which has struck them impresses their imagination as the method. 

 Founded upon no reason, their dogma is not amenable to reasoning. 

 They occupy irremovably each his isolated position, incapable of persuad- 

 ing or being persuaded. The unity which is the character of science, 

 and the collaboration which is nece.«saryin practice will be wanting when 

 rules are laid down by unreasoning caprice, instead of being deduced 

 from generally admissible first principles. 



While attaching this high importance to theory, and though we regard 

 the speculative part of our problem as logically prior, we have not thought 

 fit to put it first in our work. As in the cultivation of other practical 



