PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS. 5&9 
eighteenth century. If we cannot but regret that some of these books do not bear 
the names of English scholars, there still remains a large field for English scholars 
to explore. 
Accompanying the new zeal in this country for original research, there has 
come a recognition equally new of the importance of economic history in the 
examination requirements of the Universities. On looking at the fresh work of 
investigation which we have just been surveying, it will be observed that a large 
part of it has been more or less closely connected either with Cambridge or 
with the London School of Economics; and it is notorious that the impulse has 
been due in the one place chiefly to Dr. Cunningham and in the other chiefly to 
Professor Hewins and Mr. Webb. Accordingly, it is appropriate that economic 
history should have been given a respectable place alike iu the Cambridge History 
Tripos and in the examination for Science Degrees in Economics in the University 
of London. Even more significant is the room made for economic history in the 
Economics paper of the First Class Civil Service Examination, both for home and 
for Indian appointments. Quite aconsiderable number of undergraduatesdo now 
every year give some little attention to the subject; at least half a dozen formal 
examination papers must be set upon it annually; and there are already three or 
four elementary text-books in existence for the beginner to choose from. And all 
this is so far to the good; in an examination-ridden country it is the only way in 
which a subject can command any general attention. But I seem to observe a 
certain tendency towards what I should regard as an unfortunately sharp division 
for academic purposes between economic theory and economic history. There is 
an inclination to regard each as a specialism unconcerned with the other; 
represented by different experts; or, if sometimes combined in one person, kept in 
separate compartments of the brain. It is inevitable and salutary that some 
economists should be much more historical, others much more theoretic, in their 
interests. But a complete divorce either of narrative history and description from 
the large consideration of cause and effect or of pure theory from the conception 
of historic evolution would seem to be equally undesirable. 
I have not concealed my opinion that much of the labour that has been 
devoted to economics in English-speaking countries during the last quarter of a 
century has been less fruitful than one could desire, and yet the outlook is 
more encouraging in many respects than ever before—certainly in this country. 
For look at one interesting feature of the present situation. It is only of late 
years that the teaching of economics has begun to be so recognised and organised 
in our universities that it can be said to offer a career to a young man of ability 
in the sense in which, for instance, chemistry offers a career. 
The triumph of the Ricardians led to the creation of professorships of 
political economy at Oxford in 1825, at Cambridge in 1828, at Dublin in 1832. 
The two rival London colleges, University and King’s, and the Queen’s Colleges 
in Ireland, followed suit. But until a surprisingly recent date there was no real 
working professorship of political economy in Great Britain comparable to the 
ordinary professorships in any German university—and by ‘comparable’ I mean 
carrying with it a living wage and involving the devotion of the main strength of 
the incumbent to the duties of the chair. The remuneration was in most cases 
absurdly inadequate; the appointment at Oxford and Cambridge was the sport of 
election, and was at first made for a term of years; and it was commonly 
regarded either as a stepping-stone to a Government appointment or as an 
appendage and assistance to a political career. This was due partly to the place 
which professorial lectures generally then occupied in university life. ‘ Professors’ 
lectures were considered to be mainly ornamental, and they scarcely formed a 
part of the real educational system.’ It was due in part to the then orthodox 
view of the character of the study. ‘According to Fawcett,’ says Sir Leslie 
Stephen, diplomatically, in the life of his friend, ‘the leading principles of political 
economy and those which were really valuable were few, simple, and therefore 
capable of an exposition on the level of average intelligence.’ And the same 
view was held by most of his contemporaries, both here and in America, The 
author of the best-known American handbook of economics of this period has 
