644 eepoet — 1878. 



against the principles of free-trade, of which it is regarded as the representative. 

 But it is not with manifestations of this kind, which belong to politics rather 

 than philosophy, that I am now chiefly concerned. It is more appropriate to this 

 place to point to the growing coldness or distrust exhibited by the higher intellects 

 towards political economy — a fact which lies on the surface of things, and shows 

 itself everywhere in contemporary literature. The egoistic spirit in which it is 

 steeped may explain the continued protest which Oarlyle and Ruskin have, mainly 

 as moral preachers, maintained against it — though that very spirit is, as I shall 

 show, closely connected with vicious method. But what are we to say of Miss 

 Martineau's final judgment? Speaking in her 'Autobiography' of that part of 

 her career in which, as Professor Jevons says, " she successfully popularized the 

 truths of political economy in her admirable tales," she tells us that what she then 

 took to be the science of political economy as elaborated by the economists of our 

 time, she had come to regard as being no science at all, strictly speaking. — " So 

 many of its parts," she adds, " must undergo essential change, that it may be a 

 question whether future generations will owe much more to it than the benefit 

 (incalculable to be sure) of establishing the grand truth, that social affairs proceed 

 according to great general laws, no less than natural phenomena of every kind." 

 Here is a conclusion resting essentially on intellectual, not moral, grounds ; and 1 

 presume Professor Jevons will not explain it as a result of ignorant impatience. 



But it is no longer necessary to consider scattered indications of the feeling of 

 eminent individualities on this matter, for of late years the growing dissatisfaction 

 has risen to the dimensions of a European revolt, whose organs have appeared not 

 in the ranks of general literature, but within the sphere of economic investigation 

 itself. It is a characteristic result of the narrowness and spirit of routine which 

 have too much prevailed in the dominant English school of economists, that they 

 are either unacquainted with, or have chosen to ignore, this remarkable movement. 



The largest and most combined manifestation of the revolt has been in Germany, 

 all whose ablest economic writers are in opposition to the methods and doctrines of 

 the school of Ricardo. Roscher, Knies, Hildebrand, Nasse, Brentano, Held, 

 Schmoller, Schaffle, Schbnberg, Samter, and others, have taken up this attitude. 

 In Italy a group of distinguished writers, amongst whom are named Luzzatti, 

 Forti, and Lampertico, follow the same direction, and have a special organ in 

 which they advocate then - views. In Denmark a similar scientific evolution is in 



Srogress, chiefly under the leading of Frederiksen. The eminent Belgian publicist, 

 [. de Laveleye, has done much to call attention to these new tendencies of 

 economic doctrine, in which he himself participates. In England a corresponding 

 movement, by no means imitative, but on the contrary, highly original in character, 

 is represented by Mr. Gliffe Leslie, whom I mention with pride as an alumnus of 

 this University. In France, the new direction is not so marked in the economic 

 world, strictly so called, though in that country it really first appeared. For the 

 vices of the old school, which have led to the development of the new, were power- 

 fully stated more than forty years ago by a French thinker, who is too little studied 

 by the mass of his countrymen, Auguste Oomte, the greatest master who has ever 

 treated of sociological method. How far the Germans may have been led by 

 national prejudice to ignore his influence in the formation of their views, I will not 

 undertake to say ; but there is no doubt of the fact that the tendencies they have 

 sought to impress on economic studies are largely in accordance with the teaching 

 on that subject contained in his ' Philosophie Positive.' 



In the admirable chapters of that work, in which he described the normal con- 

 ditions and method of social science, whilst paying a warm tribute to the merits of 

 Adam Smith, he criticized what he considered the aberrations of later political 

 economists. The late Professor Cairnes, of whom, as a member of this University, 

 we are justly proud, and whom, even when I differ from him, I name 'with all the 

 respect due to an able and earnest searcher after truth, attempted an answer to 

 some of these strictures of Comte, which again elicited a reply from Mr. Frederic 

 Harrison. Considering the criticisms of the great Frenchman to have been per- 

 fectly just when he wrote them, and only requiring a certain correction now in 

 view of the healthier tendencies apparent in several quarters since his work was 



