AlthoughMill’sworkuponpurepoliticaleconomy，liesmainlybeyondmyprovince，itillustratesoneimportantpoint。Millspeaksasoneexpoundinganestablishedsystem。Thespeedwithwhichthebookwaswrittenshowsthatitdidnotimplyanyrevisionoffirstprinciples。MillisworkingingeneraluponRicardo’slines，inwhose’immortalPrinciples，’forexample，hefindsthefirstphilosophicalaccountofinternationaltrade。2*
Heassumestooeasilythatameremodificationofolddoctrinesisneeded，wherelaterwritershavedemandedathoroughgoingreconstruction。Hehasincurredsomeridicule，forexample，byanutterancecharacteristicofhisposition。Hesays，3*that’thereisnothinginthelawsofValuewhichremainsforthepresentoranyfuturewritertoclearup；thetheoryofthesubjectiscomplete。’Thephrasewasrash。Apparentlyunassailabletheorieshaveanuncomfortabletrickofsuddenlyexploding。Latereconomistsoftentakethisforacaseinpoint。
Theyhave，theythink，madeaspeciallysuccessfulbreachinthispartofMill’sdoctrine，andhisconfidencewassingularlyinfelicitous。Mill’slucklessboastwassuggestedbyhisrectificationofanambiguityintheterminologyofthescience。
How，heasked，couldtherebea’proportion’betweentwodisparatethings，a’quantity’supplyanda’desire’
demand？4*Heproceedstoremovetheambiguitybyanaccountofthe’equation’betweendemandandsupply，explainingtheprocessbywhichvaluesadjustthemselvessothatthequantitysuppliedatthecurrentpricewillbeequaltothequantitydemandedatthatprice。Itakeitthathisaccountofthefactsissubstantiallycorrect，andthat，byremovingcertaininconsistenciesoflanguage，hehadpurifiedthetheoryfromoneatoffallacies。Buthehimselfseemstoregardtheimprovementasmerelyoneofterminology。Hethinksthathispredecessorsmeanttostatethesamefacts，and，indeed，thattheymusthaveseenthetruth，thoughhecouldnotfindinthemanexpressstatement。WemayaskwhetherlaterimprovementsofMillhimselfamounttoasubstantialchangeinthetheory，ormerelytoabettermodeofexpression。Idonotdoubtthatmoderneconomistshavemuchimprovedthelanguageinwhichthetheoryisexpressed。
Nor，again，canitbedoubtedthatthelogicisrectifiedbyrectifyingthelanguage。Theonlyquestioncanbeastotheimportanceoftheimprovement。Whatstrikesthescepticisthat，afterall，whenweapproachanypracticalapplicationofthetheory，theoldandthenewtheoristsseemtobeguidedbyprettymuchthesamereasoning。Theimprovementineleganceandconsistencyofthelanguagedoesnotbringwithitacorrespondingimprovementinthetreatmentofactualproblems。
Theobviousreasonisthatpoliticaleconomyhasnotreached，ifiteverwillreach，thestageatwhichtheapplicationofarefinedlogicalmethodispossibleorfruitful。Thepowerofusingdelicatescientificinstrumentspresupposesapreliminaryprocess。Wemusthavesettleddistinctlywhatarethedatatobeobservedandmeasured；andtheuseofmathematicalformulaeisprematureandillusorytillweknowpreciselywhatwehavetocountandhowtocountit。Thedataandthepsychologicalassumptionsofeconomistsarestillfartoovagueanddisputabletoadmitofsuchmethods，exceptbywayofillustration。
Meanwhileroughandeveninaccuratestatementsmaybeadequatetoconveytheknowledgewhichwecanreallyapply。Wearereallymakinguseoffactsadmittedonallhands，andknownwithsufficientaccuracy，thoughtheprinciplesuponwhichtheydependhavenotbeenclearlydefined。
II。CONTEMPORARYMOVEMENTS
ToappreciateMill’sposition，itisnecessarybrieflytonoticetheprejudiceswhichhehadtoencounterandthesympathiesuponwhichhecouldreckon。PoliticaleconomyhadbeenexultantinthedaysofJamesMill。Heandhisallieswereenteringthepromisedland。TheytookthesciencetobeinthesamestageasastronomyjustafterthepublicationofNewton’sPrincipia。Themaintruthswereestablished，thoughprejudiceandsentimentstillblindedtheoutsideworldtotheclearestdemonstration。Anarrowandunpopularcirclenaturallyretortsdislikebyfanaticism。TheUtilitarianswere，andknewthemselvestobe，bitterlyhated；thoughtheytookthehatredtobeanunconscioustributetotheirrealauthority——thehomageofthestupidtoirresistiblelogic。RichardJonesintheprefacetohisTreatiseonRent1831，says，thattheRicardianshadnotonlyputforward’startlingandinsomeinstances，unhappily，disgustingandmostmischievousparadoxes，’butthattheyhadthusalienatedmankindandcausedadistrustofpoliticaleconomy。WhenJ。S。Mill’streatiseappeared，thispositionwasmodified。The’philosophicalRadicals’haddeclinedasaparty；
buttheassaultuponprotectionisminwhichtheyhadactedasforlornhopehadconqueredamuchwidercircle。Theirideashadspread，whetherbystressofargumentorcongenialitytotheaspirationsofthenewlyenfranchisedclasses。Theconspicuousinstance，ofcourse，isthefreetrademovement。Thetriumphoverthecorn-lawsseemedtoestablishthetruthoftheeconomictheory。Doctrinespreachedbyprofessorsandtheoristshadbeenacceptedandappliedbypoliticiansonagrandscale。Theresult，asCairnes，oneofMill’schieffollowersobserves，wasnotaltogetheranadvantagetothescience。5*Thepopularmindidentifiedpoliticaleconomywithfreetrade，andthoughtthatalldifficultiescouldbesolvedbyafreeuseofthesacredwords’supplyanddemand。’Thestricteconomicdoctrinehadbeen，asCairnesheld，adulteratedinordertosuitthetastesoftheexotericaudience。Thisremarksuggeststheproblem，notstrictlysoluble，astothecausesofthefreetradevictory。Diditmarkatriumphoflogic，orwasitduetothesimplefactthattheclasswhichwantedcheapbreadwaspoliticallystrongerthantheclasswhichwanteddearbread？Cobdenadmittedfullythatthefreetradepropagandawasa’middle-classagitation。’6*Thegenuinezealotswerethemanufacturersandmerchants；anditwassofaratrialofstrengthbetweentheleadersofindustryandtheownersofthesoil——aclassstrugglenotbetweenrichandpoor，butbetweenthe’plutocracy’andthe’aristocracy。’Cobdenwasproudoftheordertowhichhebelonged，andheldthatthearistocracyrepresentedblindprejudice。Someversesoftenquotedbypopularoratorsdeclaredthatthelandowners’mottowas’downwitheverything’includinghealth，wealth，andreligion’andupwithrent’；andBrightin1842toldtheworkmenthat’thegreatestenemyoftheremorselessaristocracyofBritainmustalmostofnecessitybetheirfirmestfriend。’7*Asusualinsuchcases，alegendarosewhichregardedthevictoryasdueexclusivelytotheforceoftruth。Beyondalldoubt，argumentplayeditspartaswellasclassprejudice。Cobden，thoughlittleinterestedinabstracttheories，wasanadmirable，cogent，andclearreasoner。Hewasfullycompetenttoassimilatesomuchpoliticaleconomyaswasrequiredforhispurpose，anduseditmosteffectively。Laterhistory，however，hasshownthatinsuchmatterspurereasoncannotbyitselfwinthebattleagainstinterestedprejudice。Forthetime，thevictory，takenbythewinnerstobeavictoryofreason，reflectedgloryupontheeconomistswhofromthedaysofAdamSmithhadbeenlabouringtoindoctrinatethepublicmind。ThetriumphoftheagitationwasthusduetosheerforceofargumentandtheConsequentrecognitionoftheprinciplesofjusticetothepoorandgoodwilltoallmankind。Scienceandphilanthropyhadjoinedhands。TheenthusiasmwhichsoonafterwardsgreetedtheExhibitionof1851
showedthewidespreadconvictionthatthemillenniumofpeaceandliberty，ofwhichtheWealthofNationsmarkedthedawn，wasatlastappearinginfulldaylight。AndMillwasregardedastheauthorisedrepresentativeinphilosophyoftheprinciplesnowatlastfullyappliedtopractice。
Millhimselfdidnotfullyshiretheoptimisticexultationwhichhelpedtostrengthenhisauthority；norwasitacceptedbytheclassmostimmediatelyaffected。The’bigloaf’wasacry，itmightbethought，whichshouldappealmoststronglytothehungriest。YettheChartists，whoseagitationwasbeginningwhentheAnti-CornLawLeaguewasfounded，werelukewarmorpositivelyhostile。Theyinterruptedfreetrademeetingsandlookedaskanceattheagitation。8*TheChartiststhoughtthatthemiddleclass，havinggotintopowerbytheirhelp，werethrowingthemoverandmonopolisingallthefruitsofvictory。Theirablestleadersadmitted，indeed，thatfreetradewouldbedesirable，butdesirableonlyonconditionthatthechartershouldfirstbeconcededanddemocracyinvestedwithpoliticalpowertoguardagainstmisappropriationoftheeconomicadvantages。Theemployers，astheysuspected，wantedcheapbread，because，asLordShaftesburyonceputit，’cheapbreadmeanslowwages。’9*
Thefree-traders，indeed，hadconstantlytomeetthisargument。
Cobdenconstantlyandearnestlydeniedtheimputation。Hedesiredfreetrade，asheassertedwithunmistakablesincerity，aboveallinjusticetoworkmen，andridiculedthenotionthatwagessankwiththepriceofcorn。10*Cobden，however，appealsrathertoobviousfactsthantoeconomictheorems；andChartistswhoreadRicardoandM’Cullochmightfindsomeexcusefortheiropinion。
Ifthe’ironlaw’heldgood，freetradeinmultiplyingthelabourersmightonlymultiplythemassofmisery。Itmightincreasetheaggregatewealthwithoutraisingtheaveragewelfare。TheeconomicalpuristsmightreplythatthepoorwouldprofitbythechangeonconditionofalsoacceptingthegospelaccordingtoMalthus。ButtheverynameofMalthusstankinthenostrilsofallChartistleaders。
Anotheragitationgavespecialimportancetothisview。Thecreditwhichaccruedtopoliticaleconomistsfromfreetradewasaffectedbytheirresponsibilityforthenewpoor-law。Thepassageofthismeasurein1834mightbetakenasavictorynotmerelyoftheeconomistsingeneral，butspecificallyofthehatedMalthus。Heandhisfollowershaddenouncedtheoldsystemmosteffectually，andhaddenounceditinthenameofhisprinciples。ToMalthusandtoRicardotheonlyremedyseemedtobetheultimateabolitionofthepoor-laws。Theirdiscipleswereprominentincarryingthenewlaw。NassauSenioralreadymentionedhadresolvedwhenayoungmantoreformthepoor-laws。
Hehadlecturedin1828onthePrinciplesofPopulationasanadherentwithsomemodificationofMalthus。AsanearlymemberofthePoliticalEconomyClubhewasattheveryfocusofsounddoctrine。Hewasanactivememberofthecommissionof1832，andissaidtohavedrawnupthefamousreportuponwhichthenewmeasurewasfounded。11*Themeasureitselfhidthereforethehighestcredentialsthatstrictpoliticaleconomistscoulddesire。BroughamasLordChancellorhelpedMissMartineau，amostorthodoxadherentoftheschool，andapersonalfriendofMalthus，topreparethepublicmindbyacontinuationofherTales。
Thenewpoor-law，thoughplacedtothecreditofMalthusians，wasbynomeansapureandsimpleapplicationoftheMalthustheory。Thegrossabuses，rate-aidedwages，andsoforth，weresuppressedinaccordancewithhisviews；butthecompleteabolitionofthepoor-law，towhichhehadlookedforward，wasoutofthequestion。Thepositionwasalreadycritical。Anexperiencedmagistratetoldthecommission12*thatifthesystemwentonforanothertenyears’afearfulandbloodycontestmustensue。’Agenerationofsuperfluouslabourers，hesaid，hadgrownupdemandingsupport。Tomaintainthesystemwasdangerous，butsimplytoabolishitwastoprovokeasocialwar。
Thealternativewasacautiousandgradualremodellingofthesystem；andthetransmutationofademoralisingintoadisciplinarysystem。Thismeantsogreatadeviationfromtheextremeproposalsthatitmighteventendtoperpetuatethesystembyremovingitsabuses。Manyoftheevilsresultedfromtheveryfactwhich，intheeyesofRicardo，wasitschiefpalliation——theobligationofeachparishtokeepitsownpaupers。Ithadproducednoteconomybutchaos。Thecommissionrecommendthatthepowerofmakingregulations，nowexercised’byupwardsoffifteenthousandunskilledandpractically