TRANSACTIONS OF SECTION F. 655 



mony with all that is hest in the spirit of the most advanced contemporary 

 thought. 



IV. Lastly has to he noticed the too absolute character of the theoretic and practi- 

 cal conclusions of the political economists. It follows (as I have already indicated) 

 from their a priori and unhistoric method that they arrive at results which purport 

 to apply equally to all states of society. Neglecting the study of the social develop- 

 ment, they tend too much to conceive the economic structure of society as fixed 

 in type, instead of as undergoing a regular modification in process of time, in rela- 

 tion to the other changing elements of human condition. Similar consequences 

 arose in other branches of sociological inquiry from the prevalence of unhistoric 

 methods. But reforms have been largely carried into effect from the increasin"- 

 recognition of the principle, that the treatment of any particular aspect of society 

 must be dominated by the consideration of the general contemporary state of 

 civilization. Thus, in jurisprudence there is a marked tendency to substitute for 

 the a priori method of the Benthamites a historical method, the leading idea of 

 which is to connect the whole juristic system of any epoch with the corresponding 

 state of society ; and this new method has already borne admirable fruits, especially 

 in the hands of Sir Henry Maine. Again, the old search after the best government, 

 which used to be the main element of political inquiry, is now seen to have been 

 radically irrational, because the form of government must be essentially related to 

 the stage of social development and to historic antecedents, and the question, what 

 is the best ? admits of no absolute answer. 



Mill admits that there can be no separate science of government ; in other 

 words, that the study of the political phenomena of society cannot be conducted 

 apart, but must, in his own words, stand part of the general science of society, not 

 01 any separate branch of it. And why ? Because those phenomena are so closely 

 mixed up, both as cause and effect, with the qualities of the particular people, or 

 of the particular age. Particular age must here mean the state of general social 

 development. But are not economic phenomena very closely bound up with the 

 particular state of development of the society which is under consideration ? Mr. 

 Bagehot, indeed, took up the ground that political economy is " restricted to a 

 single kind of society, a society of competitive commerce, such as we have in 

 England." And Mill himself, whilst stating that only through the principle of 

 competition, as the exclusive regulator of economic phenomena, has political 

 economy any claim to the character of a science, admits that competition has, only 

 at a comparatively modern period, become in any considerable degree the governing 

 principle of contracts ; that in early periods transactions and engagements were 

 regulated by custom, and that to this day in several countries of Europe, in large 

 departments of human transactions, custom, not competition, is the arbiter. 



The truth is, that in most enunciations of economic theorems by the English 

 school, the practice is tacitly to presuppose the state of social developmentfand 

 the general history of social conditions, to be similar to that of modern England • 

 and when this supposition is not realised, those theorems will often be found to fail! 



The absolute character of the current political economy is shown, not only by 

 this neglect of the influence of the general social state, but in the much too 

 unlimited and unconditional form which is given to most of its conclusions. Mr. 

 Fawcett has, in his latest publication, animadverted on this practice ; thus he 

 points to the allegation often met with, that the introduction of machines must im- 

 prove the position of the workman, the element of time being left out of account ■ 

 and the assertion that the abolition of protection in the United States could not 

 injure the American manufacturer. But this lax habit cannot, I believe, be really 

 corrected apart from a thorough change of economic method. As lono- as conclu- 

 sions are deduced from abstract assumptions, such as the perfectly free flow of 

 labour and capital from one employment to another, propositions which only affirm 

 tendencies will be taken to represent facts, and theorems which would hold under 

 certain conditions will be annoimced as universally true. 



The most marked example, the economists have afforded of a too absolute con- 

 ception and presentation of principle, both theoretical and practical, is found in 

 the doctrine of laissez /aire. It might be interesting, if time permitted, to follow 



