TRANSACTIONS OF SECTION F. 767 



reality, of a precise, defined, consistent whole, is botli wholesome and stimulating. 

 Legal authorities now pronounce inadequate Austin's ' Lectures on Jurisprudence,' 

 but I must confess that 1 look back to in}' first acquaintance with them as an epoch 

 iu my mental history. I believe that they acted as a tonic and purgative, clearing 

 away obscurity and stimulating intellectual eil'ort. If T may say so, the effect of 

 reading such an author as James Mill is not unlikely to be similar in the case of 

 the young economic student ; and for that reason, were there no other, I should 

 personally regret the exclusion from a systematic economic course of the study of 

 some of the more rigidly abstract reasonings of some of the more strict of the older 

 economists. Such study may be regarded as a propngdeutic, through which the 

 student should pass ; and he will lose, and not gain, by its omission. The regimen 

 may be somewhat severe, and the diet, so {av as the moment is concerned, not very 

 nutritious ; but the system is braced and the digestion strengthened. 



The fact, however, is that the more famous of the older economists were them- 

 selves less abstract and precise than they are represented in common opinion. 

 They took a keen and constant interest in the practical questions of their time. 

 Their speculative opinions were largely influenced by the prominent facts of their 

 day. The acumen of later, and even contemporary, criticism has discovered gaps in 

 some of their reasonings and inconsistencies — which perhaps do them honour — iu 

 some of their arguments. Ilecent economic analysis certainly endeavours to bring 

 within its range a larger number of facts, to be more explicit iu stating and repeat- 

 ing the assumptions on which it proceeds, and to be more cautious iu establishing 

 conclusions and definite in limiting their application. But the change is largely 

 due to the increasing complexity of tlie facts ; and the difference in the mode of 

 approaching and method of handling a question is one of degree rather than kind. 

 The particular problems which confronted the older writers admitted more often 

 of a plain dogmatic answer ; and, if the deliberations of the later economist be 

 more comprehensive and protracted, his conclusions need not on that account be 

 indecisive. Indeed, with the lapse of time, the necessity and advantage of expert 

 advice have grown more obvious and urgent. 



"VYhat, then, is the general character of that advice ? The answer may seem a 

 truism, but it is smvly this. As in other departments of study, the mission of the 

 scientific economist is to discern, and to assist others to recognise, the unseen. 

 He is not content with a superficial view. He endeavours to penetrate below the 

 surface of aUairs and discover the invisible forces. He employs telescope and 

 microscope to bring within the range of vision what is distant or unnoticed. He 

 compels the practical man to pay attention to something more than the obvious 

 and immediate consequences of the policy he is pursumg ; and the chief advantage 

 ofecouomicsaspart of a scheme of general education seems to consist in inducing a 

 habit of mind which will not be satisfied with superficial explanation. And it 

 induces this habit in matters with which men and women are brought into close and 

 necessary contact in the ordinary routine of everyday life. They may flatter them- 

 selves that common-sense alone is needed to deal with such matters, and that no 

 scientific training or aid is required. Economics dispels this subtle and danger- 

 ous illusion, and furnishes an instrument which at once controls and strengthens 

 common-sense. Nor is this claim for economics as a discipline of the mind and as 

 a guide in matters of practical conduct by any means novel. It was put forward 

 with prominence by Bastiat, whose writing is sometimes regarded as an illustrative 

 example of the application of orthodox economics to the treatmentof an important 

 practical question. It has been recently adduced by the Duke of Argyll, who, 

 dissatisfied with what he considers orthodox economics, attempts to supply its 

 defects by disclosing the 'Unseen Foundations of Society.' The arguments" and 

 conclusions of Bastiat may not be accepted, the criticisms of the JDuke may be 

 refuted, by contemporary economists, who may claim the title of orthodox, if 

 they desire an epithet which seems to bring as much opprobrium as honour ; but 

 they would certainly agree with the earlier exponent and the later critic, who, 

 curiously enough, have not a little else in common, in regarding the mission 

 of economics as an endeavour to see, and to reveal to others, the unseen. 



That such a description is no barren truism, that economics thus conceived 



